The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate .
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Thursday, 25 July 2019, from 10 am.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Monday, 29 July 2019, from 11 am.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) condemns the Government for its failure over six years to develop and implement a comprehensive and effective policy to assist rural and regional communities facing severe drought conditions; and
(b) notes that the inferior response contained in the bill requires the abolition of the Building Australia Fund, which could be used to build road, rail, and other vital infrastructure—including water infrastructure—in these very same rural and regional communities."
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:31): Last night I outlined the effect that climate change has on drought in Australia and the records on climate change, especially in the last 30 years. I'd like to foreshadow my second reading amendment, which has been circulated in the chamber, on sheet 8714:
", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the Bureau of Meteorology has stated that:
(i) the current drought in the Murray-Darling Basin is the most severe in 120 years of records; and
(ii) climate change is a significant cause of the severity of the drought; and
(b) calls on the Government to recognise that we are in the middle of a climate crisis which has implications for droughts in this country."
When we think about drought, we think about a parched landscape and empty water tanks. But, often, we don't think about the wide-ranging effects that drought has on our community, the health of our community, the health of our economy and the health of our biodiversity. We know that drought can have wide-ranging effects, including on nutrition, infectious diseases, forest fires causing air pollution in Tasmania—which I outlined earlier in my speech—mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress, and suicide behaviour. This has all been well documented and well established.
Drought can also contribute to increases in mortality rates. The World Meteorological Organization has linked drought to over 680,000 deaths globally in the 40 years to 2012. Even here in Australia, declines in physical health are particularly prevalent among the elderly in drought-affected rural communities. I could go on about the impacts of drought on our economy, often overlooked in debate in this place.
It beggars belief that we're handing over the reins of billions of dollars to a party, the National Party, and a minister who won't even recognise the impact that climate change has on drought or the fact that it has contributed to this record drought that these funds are going towards alleviating. If we don't address the underlying causes of drought and the multiplier effect it has on our communities, our economies and the environment, then we're just going to continue to throw good money after bad.
I'd like to talk a bit more in the five minutes I have left about the importance of how we fund this legislation, the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and related bill. Labor have raised objections previously that they don't want the money to come from infrastructure spending. It's very disappointing to see that they haven't put up any alternatives for where we could find the funding to go towards rural communities and the mitigation of and adaptation to drought in these communities. The Greens have put forward a series of amendments, including an amendment that will take money from dirty fossil fuel companies, from big oil and gas companies, who are getting away with blue murder in this country and not paying any tax.
I outlined earlier in my speech the $360 billion in tax credits that some of the biggest, wealthiest corporations on this planet have clocked up in this country. Four times now the Greens have moved in this chamber to fix this tax system, this tax rort, and actually deliver some money for the Australian people. This is a good place to start today when we are debating a bill about how we can help farmers. Why don't we have fossil fuel companies pay for this drought relief fund? Why don't we have the money come from companies that are making profits from burning fossil fuels that are directly linked to rising emissions and to the length, severity and frequency of incidence of drought in this country? That's what we should be doing.
If we want to be honest about this debate and apply the user-pay principle, which so often the mob on the other side of the chamber are very happy to talk about, let's fix the broken tax system in this country and use that money at least for the public good. I think those taxes—$360 billion—will never be paid in this country. In fact, they continue to build every year because of the generous way this system has been set up. Those taxes could be used to pay for schools and hospitals. They could go towards rural communities that need funds to help them survive in a future of climate change.
Have the guts and fortitude in this place to actually put a price on carbon emissions. The Greens previously successfully got a carbon price in this chamber, with the help of Labor. It was the gold standard all around the world with a clean energy package for investing $10 billion into renewable energy, including, I say to the opposite side, in wind farm projects. There was $10 billion for renewable energy to drive the transition to a clean economy and renewables jobs, including in regional Australia. That money could be very useful for us to properly transition communities, coal workers and their families in regional Queensland and, of course, farming communities. So I urge this Senate to consider the idea that we should actually be taxing the source of these droughts that we're seeing in rural and regional Australia and the root cause of the suffering that we're seeing in farming communities.
My father is a retired farmer. I say to Australian farmers: when are you going to put pressure on the Barnaby Joyces of the world? Barnaby Joyce only recently came out and completely disregarded the importance of climate change and the need for action for the future of all Australian communities and, indeed, the future of the planet. He completely disregarded that we can make any impact or show any leadership on this most important of issues. It is so ironic that farmers consistently vote for the Liberal and National parties when they have done nothing. If anything, they have deliberately gone slow and stymied any attempts in this parliament to act on climate change. I implore Australian farming communities and farming organisations, such as the National Farmers' Federation, to put pressure on this government to act on climate change and to support the Greens today in taking money off the dirty fossil fuel companies that are creating this problem in the first place. It is an absolute no-brainer.
I urge the Australian Senate to consider these Greens amendments to take money off big oil and gas companies—the same companies that are paying virtually no tax in this country, the same companies that are exploiting a system set up to benefit big fossil fuel companies, the same companies that are still going out and exploring for oil and gas in the pristine waters of the Great Australian Bight, the same companies that are conducting seismic surveys off the north coast of New South Wales and, in my home state, in the waters off King Island, and the same companies that are trying to profit from burning fossil fuels at a time in history when we desperately need to transition our economy. Let's take money off them to pay for farmers. Let's fix this tax rort and take action on climate change. (Time expired)
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (09:39): I rise to speak on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and related bill. I'll begin by making this point: if you don't have a plan for dealing with the climate crisis, you don't have plan for dealing with drought. That should be self-evident. The bottom line is that if you're not serious about tackling the breakdown of our climate, then anything you say about your concern about drought is meaningless.
We've got to choose between, our farmers who provide three per cent of GDP or $60 billion, and thermal coal exports, which are on track to be 1 per cent of GP or about $19 billion, because we can't have both. The single biggest cause of our climate breaking down and plunging our prime food-producing lands into severe, prolonged drought is coal, and we are the world's biggest exporter of coal. So, as long as our two major parties have no plan for coal, they have no plan for drought and for protecting our farmers and the land that sustains them and, in turn, all of us.
My message to those on the government benches is that irreparable damage to our food-producing lands is closer than they think. Farmers, right now, are on the frontline and are the first industry being hit by climate damage. They are feeling it each and every day. There's more heat-trapping pollution going up into our atmosphere right now than at any other time in human history. That should scare the living daylights out of people. It should scare the living daylights out of that mob over there, and it should prompt strong action.
Just think about what the Bureau of Meteorology said. The bureau has now said that this is the most severe drought in the Murray-Darling Basin in 120 years of records. Tomorrow, Paris is on track to experience record-breaking temperatures of 42 degrees, when their side of the world turns to face the sun—42 degrees—unprecedented in the city of love! In Canada 18 climate records have broken this month. The arctic is 4½ degrees warmer than usual.
Drought is threatening major cities in India like Chennai. India's people and their livestock are on the brink. In Mozambique, months of rain fell in a few short hours, creating a weather-related disaster in the Southern Hemisphere: 1.8 million people affected and $73 million of damage to buildings, infrastructure and agriculture. Do you know what the World Meteorological Organization said that this was? They said that it was a wake-up call to the world. So this bill and the government's refusal to address, let alone acknowledge, what is driving this drought show that they are incapable of responding to a challenge—an extensional challenge—that confronts each and every one of us, especially our farmers, who are struggling right now.
This drought and the natural disasters I've just talked about don't reflect the impacts of the record-high pollution pumping into our atmosphere and oceans we're experiencing right now. We know there's a lag. We know that things are on track to get worse. I've talked about the situation globally. Here in Australia, our emissions have never been higher. Let me say that again: Australia's pollution has never been higher. We've made gains from transitioning away from coal to renewables, but those gains are being wiped out by our gas export industry. As a result of that industry, we're seeing more pollution being pumped into the atmosphere than ever before.
As my colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson said, we know the reasons for that. We know that those massive donations—the $2.7 million donated to the National and Liberal parties and the $2 million donated to the Labor Party over the past five years—mean that Australia is stuck with a shocking framework for dealing with this crisis. It means that polluters can pollute for free, while all of us need to pay for their mess. We see a cartel holding Australian households and businesses to ransom with record high prices or, indeed, threatening to export instead. We've got these profitable industries that don't pay a cent in royalties. They get their gas for free. They've amassed $324 billion in tax credits, meaning they won't have to pay a cent in tax for a decade. They are extracting our resources, they are doing it for free and they are asking each and every one of us to clean up the mess. As an added bonus for their donations, they've got gas lobbyists and communications strategists handing the minister intellectually bankrupt talking points. Somehow we are being told that burning more coal and gas is going to reduce our emissions and clean up the atmosphere. What nonsense. What utter garbage. That's why my colleague Senator Rice will be moving a second reading amendment to say that the gas industry should pay for the damage that they're doing to our farmers.
The coal and gas industry are getting away with robbery against the Australian people. They are aided and abetted by the Australian government, and it is damaging our farmers. It is leading to an epidemic of mental ill health. It is causing distress. Families are being torn apart. It is the actions of this government, in refusing to deal with dangerous climate change, that are responsible for driving the crisis that people are experiencing right across regional Australia. When the Nationals and the Liberal Party stop taking those donations from the coal, oil and gas industry, then we'll know that they are serious about dealing with drought and that they are indeed on the side of farmers. When the Labor Party stop celebrating coal and start to refuse donations from the coal industry, then we'll know that they are serious about tackling the breakdown of our climate and about helping our farmers. Until then, we know that this is simply rhetoric and hot air and that they are pouring fuel on this bushfire and using this bill as a water pistol to try and put it out.
Of course, we know why the bill has been designed in the way that it has. This is about creating a slush fund for the National Party to hand out millions of dollars to their corporate irrigator mates. You only need to look at what happens when you put the National Party in charge of water. Look no further than their management of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Do you remember that recording where the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, was telling his mates in Shepparton that he was going to look after them and prevent water from going into the environment? He doesn't care about the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. He cares about lining the pockets of his irrigator mates. Remember the awarding of infrastructure grants for things that companies were going to do anyway, with no follow-up on how that money was spent, and that cowboy attitude that led to fraud charges against the cotton-growing empire of Norman Farming, which has family connections to the current water minister? Remember the Nationals turning a blind eye to earthworks on farms in the northern basin to harvest floodwaters—water that should have been flowing down to the lower basin communities? Remember the biggest single payment for new infrastructure given to Angus Taylor's associated companies, with no requirement to surrender ongoing rights to water? The market value of what was sold for $80 million is pretty close to zero. But don't take my word for it. Take the words of the South Australian royal commissioner, Bret Walker SC, who made it very clear that Commonwealth officials had committed gross maladministration, negligence and unlawful actions in drawing up the multibillion-dollar deal to save Australia's largest river system. Let's be clear about this. The Nationals are in charge of water, and there is a royal commission in South Australia highlighting gross maladministration, negligence and unlawful activity. That's what's in store here.
We have concerns, serious concerns, about what this drought fund will do. Of course, in specific circumstances there is a strong case to give assistance to farmers by funding appropriate projects, but this bill doesn't do that. It hands extraordinary power to the minister, without the appropriate checks and balances. That's why we'll be amending this legislation, and we call on all sides—the Labor Party and, indeed, the crossbench—to support what will be sensible amendments and to make sure that where assistance is given it is not money that is taken out of the funding of infrastructure, that where assistance is given it is given on the basis of sound scientific advice and not at the whim or behest of an irrigator. We need to ensure that, where we are funding projects, we are not funding projects that will fuel the increased use of fossil fuels, leaving us entrenched further in a cycle of climate change and drought.
People across the land are struggling. They are struggling because they are facing one of the worst droughts in this nation's history. Until we have a plan to deal with the cause of drought and the breakdown of our climate, we don't have a plan to deal with drought. Unless we have a plan to transition away from coal to renewable energy, away from increasing gas use to renewable energy, we will be making drought worse, because we will be fuelling climate pollution and, of course, the destruction of so many agricultural communities. Where assistance is given to farming communities it needs to be on the basis of science, not on the basis of a fund designed to assist the National Party to look after their corporate backers.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:53): I rise to indicate that Centre Alliance will be supporting farmers and will be supporting the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019. However, we will at the committee stage be moving an amendment, which has been circulated, that relates to membership of the committee, making sure that membership is reflective of the various areas affected, or that could be affected, by drought. We are doing that because we want to ensure that drought is considered within a national context and that there is not a disproportionate focus on one region affected by the drought.
As the committee provides advice to the minister for drought regarding the design and programs funded under the funding plan, it is vital, in our view, that the committee is balanced, not only in terms of gender, knowledge and skills but also in respect of the regions members come from. We don't want a situation where an appointment to a committee involves four Queenslanders or four South Australians or four New South Welshmen. We just want to make sure that it's balanced and that any recommendations would come with a national lens attached. We think that will improve the bill and we'll be supporting the bill.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (09:54): I rise to make my contribution to this debate on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, but there are a few things we need to sort out. From the nonsense we've heard in some of the speeches here, it is as though, with the greatest respect to my colleagues across the chamber here, some of them have this stupid belief that only they care about the bush, our food producers and our rural communities, which is quite disingenuous. I have to say this clearly: for the last 14 years I have spent all my time on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. As every senator in this place knows, I have devoted every single minute and hour I could to travelling this country to improve legislation and the lot of our rural communities and our rural families—not only farmers but also those who live in rural Australia. So it is disingenuous to hear some of the stupid remarks, especially from some of the older, more experienced senators who can't help themselves but to go the low road. I thought we'd lost the senators who go the low road when previous Senator Macdonald from Queensland left here—thank goodness!—a couple of months ago; unfortunately there are a few still around.
But let's get back to this. You have to pick up on what Senator Patrick and others have said. You have to clearly understand what is being proposed here. Every single legislator in this place and in the other place wants to do the best for our rural communities, our farmers and everyone who relies on them. We know that. But, for crying out loud, I couldn't imagine the squealing, the screeching and the howls of anger that would have come from that side if Labor were proposing to raid a $3.9 billion fund set up to deliver rural and regional infrastructure projects.
For all those out there listening I want to send a special message, particularly to the members of the Nats in the coalition. The Nats in the coalition have always been referred to as the doormats. I haven't heard that doormat comment for many years but I have noticed, as I have traversed the hallways here on route to other senators' offices, to the minister's office and to Senate committee rooms, that there is a new poster hitting the windows. The Nats always prided themselves with a green and yellow square bit of cardboard that said 'The Nationals delivering for the country' or whatever it was—'Country Nats' or something like that. Now we have a hybrid. We have a blue and white one—not the yellow and green one, not the colours of the National Party but the colours of the other partners in the coalition, the senior partners—saying 'Regional Liberals'.
Let's come back to the Nats. Just really concentrate on what you have been lassoed into here. While we are all trying to get as much assistance to drought-affected regions, families and communities throughout Australia, you are lining up, like a bunch of ducks heading off to duck season, behind the senior partners of the coalition to champion raiding a $3.9 billion fund which gives rural and regional Australia much-needed infrastructure projects. At this stage, from what we can find out, the $3.9 billion from that fund is not going into the pockets of farmers. It's not going into the bank accounts of those that rely on farming communities for their business to succeed as well in their community, whether they be the local garage in rural Australia, the local Mitre 10, the local cattle carter, stock carter, grain carter. There is no money. I can't find one single cent that is going into the pocket of the stock feeder, who supplies the feed, because obviously they're not doing all that well either.
But before we even start going down that path, we're told that the $100 million could be provided to farmers, not today, not tomorrow, not next month or in three months time or six months time or, crikey, maybe not even in 10 or 11 months. Are you listening, all you Nationals out there? But don't worry; the Libs have got your back! Nats, did you actually sit in your party room and decide, once you got through the 'Let's all go down together, brothers and sisters, because it's in the best interests of our farmers that they're going to get only $100 million, maybe,' to blindly follow what the Country Liberals or the rural Liberals—I don't know how many of them there are—and the city-centric Liberals, 'because they have it all worked out'?
Seriously, put your hands on your hearts and report back to your community and say: 'We might be able to get a couple of pesos here or a few rupiah there.' I don't know what that's going to be. Food tokens to go to Coles or the local IGA? I've got no idea. I'm hoping someone on that side will jump up and say: 'Sterlie, you've got it all wrong mate. We've got it all worked out. We know exactly how much is going to go into each farming family's pocket'—bank account, marmalade jar or old Arnott's bickie tin buried down the backyard. I don't know how you are going to do it. Do you know why? Because you don't know how you're going to do it. I think these are fair questions.
You see, we on this side will do everything to work with you to support those poor devils who are affected by drought. But let's not just stop at the farmers. Come up and tell us. I'm dying to hear from the minister to break it all down—when the money is going to be delivered and where it is going to be delivered. And how do we work out what is in drought and what isn't in drought? I ask this question seriously. This is not a new argument that I have had to have while sitting on the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. You are relying on different shires to come forth. And then you've got to say who is really in drought, who has been in drought longer, and who hasn't been in drought very long. And how do you break up who gets what amount? Does every farming family? You can add the grain carter, the livestock carter and the owners of the local Tyrepower and supermarket, which are hurting too. Are you going to tell me they are going to get some assistance as well? And are you going to talk to us at any stage about your plans to droughtproof Australia? We haven't even gone down that path yet.
Nats, if you are out there listening: for six years you and your mates the Liberals—the senior partners in the coalition—have been in government. For six years that fund has been sitting there with $3.9 billion in it and nothing has come forward to fix up any regional and rural infrastructure. Do it! But don't raid another rural and regional bucket of money. When all is said and done, we have some of the best food and fibre products in the world. There is absolutely no argument about that. We have some of the most efficient ports; we can get the products on ships and trains and get it moving. But, lo and behold, the majority of freight in this nation is carried on trucks. You are denying rural and regional Australia the infrastructure projects. Not only are you raiding their fund, but you have done five-eighths of nothing to fix anything or build anything. You are having your tummies tickled, Nats. The senior partners in the coalition, the Libs, are rolling over at the drop of a hat because your leadership, through Minister McCormack—I don't know, who is the leader? Is it still Mr Joyce? I don't know. I can understand why Mr McCormack would have one eye on Mr Joyce and one eye on his own backyard—which you should do—but it is more than just his seat.
There are so many questions that need to be asked. But there are no answers—nothing. But this is typical of this place in the 14 years that I have been here. Isn't it amazing: for every single problem, there is a perfect zero on the end of every costing. I don't even know how you get $100 million. Why isn't it $200 million? Why isn't it $3.9 billion? Why isn't it $16 billion? You tell me. What will $100 million do? The silence is deafening.
And I am really looking forward to when we get into committee. All I can work out so far—I'm told that the Regional Investment Corporation will be tasked with advising the government. I wouldn't have my heart set on that being the most efficient place. Let's go back a few steps. That was set up by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Minister Joyce, who was a senator for a couple of years. I don't think that was a great recommendation. I think that was set up after the Nats lost the seat of Orange for the first time in 69 years.
But let's not also forget that we had a drought envoy. When Mr Joyce fell from grace and moved aside, he couldn't wait to resign his post 'in the best interests of the nation'. Ha-ha, that was tongue in cheek—he got booted out! He was then set up as the drought envoy. What did the drought envoy do? The drought envoy was around for 12 months. There weren't any proposals that we needed to put X amount of dollars into farmers' pockets. Is it farmers' pockets? I don't know what it is. Are you going to transport water? What are you going to do? Are you going to bring in stock? I shouldn't be the one having to ask these questions. The ones who should be asking these questions are the doormats in the coalition. I haven't called you doormats for years, but, based on the way you are carrying on here, 'doormats' is a nice word; I could think of other things.
Labor has always supported rural and farming communities. There is no argument that the Greens support rural, regional and farming communities. I've worked very closely with Senator Rice on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. Senator Rice and I don't have all that much in common, but one thing I can tell you is that she has carried the—what do you call it?
Senator Rice interjecting—
Senator STERLE: What do you have? You've got a few things—transport and farming. You've got a few things, Senator Rice. You've got everything, Senator Rice. I don't know what the rest of the Greens do. You're the one who is always out there working. I've never once heard her condemn farming communities or Australia's food producers or fibre producers—not once. We know that One Nation will get up and bang on about farmers at the drop of a hat, absolutely. And I say to Senator Patrick and Senator Griff: I've got the greatest of respect for Centre Alliance, but you're getting blindsided as well as the doormats. Support our farming communities but don't raid another bucket. Why raid a bucket that's there to deliver infrastructure for rural and regional Australia?
Do you know what the next cry will be? I will tell you what the next cry will be. The Nats will have a little huddle and they will all squeeze into their telephone box on the other side of the building and then the penny might actually drop and one of them will go: 'Oops; what about the projects in Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong linking the railways?' Another one was improving the Pacific Highway—and we all know that the road deaths on the Pacific Highway are nothing to brag about. How long will it take you to wake up to the fact you've been done over again? What we seriously should be doing, if we can get to the stage where you can explain your $100 million—where, when, how, who and all that—is going even further. This is a $100 million bandaid for maybe 11 months or maybe longer. I can't believe I'm saying this. This is like a bad dream. I hope I'm going to wake up and find out that it was just a shocking dream. But, unfortunately, it's not.
I've gone on enough about the Nats, but not one of them has come down here to defend their position. Is it because you're that thick? No, I don't think it is because you're that thick—some may be but the majority isn't—I just think you're blindsided. If you spent a little bit more time thinking in the best interests of rural and regional Australia than about your own career advancements, maybe that would help—I don't know. I've got no fear or favour on this side, none at all. I'll say it as it is, because I'm the one that ends up in the rural communities. Whether I'm looking into prawns, biosecurity or transport—every darn thing; the whole lot—I get out there and meet the people in the bush, and I hear the same arguments. Someone—I don't know who it was—said earlier: 'Those poor devils in the bush continue to keep voting for the Nats even though they are doing nothing for them.' Maybe they need the 'regional Liberals'. Maybe that is what they need. They need a good 'regional Liberal' to stiffen them up, put a backbone in them and give them a good decent whack. Maybe that's what they need. It's absolutely incredible!
I'll go back to some other examples of what the Labor Party has done in supporting rural and regional Australia and farmers. There is no secret that, whether it be the Abbott government, the Turnbull government or the Morrison government, we have backed rural and regional Australia. We backed them with the additional supplementary farm household allowance payments of up to $12,000. There was no argument about that. We did it straightaway for eligible FHA recipients. We agreed and supported the extension of the allowance from three years to four years. I remember the drama we went through with that and the many rounds of Senate estimates where we had to keep asking the department: 'Who's put their hand up? How many people?' My goodness! Senator Brockman, you know all about that, mate. You had a headful of hair before we started that questioning. Now look what's happened. I'm lucky I don't pull mine out.
Senator Cormann: I've never known him to have hair.
Senator STERLE: He had hair on that committee; I'm telling you! I will ignore that interjection, anyway. What about increasing the farm asset threshold from $2.6 million to $5 million? We didn't bat an eyelid.
All the way through, we have to listen to some of this nonsense. The senator who is Minister for Agriculture—I've forgotten her name; darn!—can't wait to get out and say it's only the Nats that look after the bush—Senator McKenzie. She's the bush girl. I didn't know St Kilda was in the bush, but it was at one stage—or Mordialloc or wherever she's living. Do you know what her great contribution to the rural and regional affairs committee was? She couldn't wait to leak out a reference for inquiry and the recommendations before the committee had even ticked off on them. Senator McKenzie, it's all right taking the big pay packet, but, seriously, you're the leader of the Nats in the Senate. You come in here, Senator McKenzie, and tell me why it's a great idea to raid a $3.9 billion infrastructure fund for rural and regional Australia—not playgrounds or infrastructure pet projects in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Darwin but projects delivered to your region. You come in here and tell me why that's a great idea.
What you should be doing, Senator McKenzie and crew, is grabbing hold of your senior partners—not the doormats but the senior ones, the grown-ups—and then asking them: 'Hang on, what happens when this $100 million runs out? What do we do next? What's next on the plan? Are the Libs going to tell me that this $100 million bucket of money, wherever or with whomever it's going to end up, is going to stop the drought? What do we do next year? What do we do the year after?' Why aren't you, Nats, asking these questions of your senior partners, the rural Liberals? I'm not the one that has to answer that, but I tell you what: I'm not going to let you forget it, and I'm going to keep reminding you, because you're going to own this. So, while you're all here in your joint party room thinking, 'How can I get a promotion and not upset the senior coalition partners?' by crikey, think about how you will go back to your bush communities and defend this, because it's been six years that you've been in government and you've done a duck egg—zero, nothing, not a thing.
While we're at it, Minister, please take this on board: tell me how you came to $100 million. I'm not blaming you, Minister Cormann. You're the one that's got the sandwich, but sort it out. You're the one that's been told. You're the fixer, mate, not that impostor from South Australia. You're the fixer. You're the one that's going to find the money. Tell me how you got $100 million that will help these poor devils out. Tell me how long it will take to get whatever it is into wherever it's going to go. Minister, just stand up and cut me down, because I'll be the first one to congratulate you when you actually show me a list of names—it may be redacted—showing how much each family's going to get in their pocket, their bickie tin, the marmalade jar or whatever it might be and tell me how you got to that figure.
Please, Minister, do not insult my intelligence and that of other members of this fine establishment here by telling me you're going to offer them low-interest loans. Please don't go down that path, because one thing I learnt from the immortal former senator Bill Heffernan—and I'm probably the only one around here who likes the bloke, because he used to give you mob a good shake-up—is something he said to me way back in early 2006, very clearly: the last thing farmers need when they're in stress is another damn loan. He wasn't so succinct in his language. I tell you what: I've tamed it down a fair bit. But doesn't that make sense? So, Minister, please tell me a stupid statement like that is not even going to pass your lips when we have people who are under stress—and I don't even want to start going down to the mental stress that these poor families are going through at this moment and have been going through for more than just the last week, when the minister and the Prime Minister thought it was a great idea to go out to the bush and have a meeting when they haven't done anything for six darn years leading into it. I can't think what they'd be going through. I reckon they could tell you what to do with your low-interest loans. They'll tell you what to do with them and where they could go.
I'm summarising. I'm sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. I could go on about this for hours and hours. The sad part here is that so many questions need to be asked. In the final seconds that I've got, I say to the Nats, if you're up there listening: you'd better get your act together and get down here. You are the ones that need to be asking these questions, because it will fall on your shoulders when that money doesn't start flowing through. You build the expectation of a figure that's got two zeros on it and perfectly fits into $100 million. You're making absolutely no sense. The more I talk about it, the more confused I'm getting. You can keep your smart remarks, but I know what you're thinking over there. But I'm not the only one, because I don't think any of you lot know what's going on. In saying that, I won't be supporting this.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:15): I thank all those senators who have contributed to this debate. It's disappointing given that in the fine print I think I might have heard Senator Sterle right at the end say that he is actually going to support the bill that he spent 20 minutes having a crack at. This speech that you've just heard was, sadly, another demonstration of the disappointing attitude and the disingenuous attitude that Labor has taken to this important measure.
Labor senators have sought to create the impression that the additional funding into projects to support increased and improved drought resilience in rural and regional communities is the only thing we're doing to support Australians and, in particular, farmers impacted by the drought, that's of course not true. This measure in this legislation, the establishment of the Future Drought Fund, comes on top of about $2 billion in additional measures that we've previously announced. And we've announced significant enhancements to the Farm Household Allowance arrangements, for example, also in the wake of the drought.
If you listened to Senator Sterle's contribution in isolation—Senator Watt was the same, and I hate to say it but even my valued colleague the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, the senator for the ACT, was the same—you'd think that somehow our support for drought affected communities will only start on 1 July 2020, that is not true and it's entirely disingenuous. I think it is very disappointing that you would seek to mislead rural communities across Australia to that effect in that way.
Then there was this false impression created that somehow we are ripping $3.9 billion in funding out of infrastructure. Instead of a $3.9 billion Building Australia Fund, we have a $100 billion infrastructure investment pipeline, much of which goes into much-needed infrastructure in rural and regional Australia. Again, this proposition that somehow we are reducing our commitment to infrastructure investment is completely and utterly false. Labor knows this to be false and they're deliberately creating a false impression.
This Future Drought Fund will give farmers in rural and regional communities, which have been suffering years of unrelenting drought, the tools they need to prepare for, manage and sustain their businesses. This Future Drought Fund will grow from $3.9 billion to $5 billion over the next decade, while facilitating a $100 million a year additional investment into drought resilience and preparedness, even in the good years, every year from 1 July 2020.
We're doing the same in relation to the Medical Research Future Fund. The Medical Research Future Fund is facilitating the Commonwealth to double its investment in medical research by creating a revenue stream, which means that additional investment is fiscally sustainable. It will not detract from our budget bottom line over the medium and long term and that is very good financial management.
We have taken a $3.9 billion capital fund which lay dormant—which had a very low return because of the way the Labor Party decided to invest that capital when they were in government—and through the change in investment mandate we will ensure that it will get a better return, which means that it is projected that the capital will grow from $3.9 billion to $5 billion over a decade, while also dispersing $100 million every year in additional funding to support additional projects in a way that is fiscally sustainable. That is, as I say, good financial management.
Despite the games and the disingenuous rhetoric—and then in the fine print saying that they actually will support this very important initiative—that Labor has displayed here in recent days this is a very important initiative to support rural communities across Australia.
The consultative committee, should this legislation pass the parliament, will soon begin engaging with farmers in rural and regional communities to ensure the money is well spent when the additional funding becomes available from next year. The government will work swiftly to establish the Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee and put in place all of the appropriate, rigorous governance arrangements for the appropriate selection and prioritisation of projects.
I say it again: this measure comes on top of about $2 billion in additional support that we have already directed into drought affected communities across Australia. To go back to the $100 million infrastructure investment pipeline under our government, about a third of that—about $33 billion—is going directly into infrastructure in rural and regional Australia. Here we've got Labor senators suggesting that, somehow—by directing a $3.9 billion low-income-earning infrastructure investment fund, which had been lying dormant, into facilitating additional investment into projects to improve drought resilience across Australia—we're doing the wrong thing by rural infrastructure. Well, actually, we have committed about $33 billion in additional investment into infrastructure in rural and regional communities.
There is a whole range of questions that have been raised, which I'm sure we can address in the committee stages, but for the purpose of this summing up speech, let me say that I commend this bill to the Senate and I hope that it will get broad support.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:29): I move my second reading amendment regarding introducing a royalty on oil and gas project to pay for the Future Drought Fund:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the placement of a 10 per cent royalty on projects subject to the PRRT, creditable against PRRT liabilities, and treated as a deductible expense in calculating company tax, would raise $4 billion, in real terms, within two years; and
(b) calls on the Government to bring forward legislation to introduce a Commonwealth royalty on oil and gas projects for the purposes of the Future Drought Fund in recognition that the oil and gas industry are contributing to more severe and prolonged droughts."
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:30]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (10:36): I move the second reading amendment on sheet 8715 standing in my name:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate notes that free or unlimited water entitlements given to fossil fuel companies by State and Territory governments, while farmers struggle with drought conditions, significantly undermines the effectiveness of any drought response by:
(a) depriving farmers of water;
(b) exacerbating droughts; and
(c) worsening climate change which further exacerbates droughts."
The amendment indicates it will be incredibly useless to have a drought fund if you continue to let big mining companies have free water.
The PRESIDENT: This is not an opportunity for debate. The debate has been closed.
Senator WATERS: That is all I need to say. I'm just reminding people of the excellence of the amendment.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:38]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:41): I move the second reading amendment on sheet 8714 standing in my name:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the Bureau of Meteorology has stated that:
(i) the current drought in the Murray-Darling Basin is the most severe in 120 years of records; and
(ii) climate change is a significant cause of the severity of the drought; and
(b) calls on the Government to recognise that we are in the middle of a climate crisis which has implications for droughts in this country."
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:43]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (10:47): The question is that these bills be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
In Committee
Bills—by leave—taken together and as a whole.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:46): I want to start with a question to the minister about how much the Drought Resilience Funding Plan that's going to be set up under this bill is acknowledging the reality of our climate crisis.
I had a read through the explanatory memorandum and, essentially, we're in a situation where drought is the new reality that we're dealing with because of our climate crisis. Hotter, drier climates are a reality. Minister, you yourself said in your closing statement that we are suffering through years of unrelenting drought. This is the new reality. We have got hotter, drier climates. That means less water. That means any drought fund, any projects, have to deal with the reality of: this is what climate change is imposing upon the Australian environment. And so, clearly, what we need to do is say: 'Right, this is the new reality, and these hotter and drier conditions are going to continue and they're going to get worse. Hopefully, we'll be able to do something about mitigating the climate change and reducing how much worse it gets. But hotter and drier climates are a reality. That means less water—less water across the board, less water for our agriculture and less water for our environment.'
To our Greens' eyes, this means that any money that you're spending, any fund that you're setting up, has got to start with its bottom line acknowledging that reality and then work out what needs to be done to support farming and regional communities to deal with this new reality—supporting them and supporting agricultural businesses to use less water, building resilience and supporting regenerative agriculture. In particular, with this being the new reality, there is less water to go around and agriculture needs to use less water because the environment's got to have some left for it. We've got to have water for our natural ecosystems, for our rivers and streams, for the ecosystem services that we all rely on—the health of our rivers and streams, and healthy wetlands and estuaries.
So, Minister, is this fund actually going to start with the bottom line of the whole underlying philosophy behind this drought plan dealing with the fact that we are in a climate crisis?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:49): As I indicated in my summing-up speech, this fund, once legislated and established, will generate $100 million of additional investment in initiatives, measures and projects to improve drought resilience and preparedness across impacted rural and regional communities. This comes on top of a whole series of other measures that we've previously announced as a government, $2 billion worth of additional measures to support farmers and regional communities in drought affected areas.
In relation to the way the funding will be allocated under this fund, the governance framework for funding decisions under the Future Drought Fund is robust and transparent, noting particularly the requirements for extensive public consultation in developing the overarching drought resilience funding plan and consideration of independent experts' advice before allocating funds. The funding plan will be informed by advice from the expert consultative committee which will be established by the Future Drought Fund Bill. The committee will also advise whether the proposed design of Future Drought Fund programs are consistent with the funding plan.
The Productivity Commission will conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of each funding plan before it expires, including having regard to economic, social and environmental outcomes. Further, all funding decisions must be consistent with the drought resilience funding plan and informed by advice from the Regional Investment Corporation. Programs to be supported under the plan will require approval through the annual budget processes, and funding for projects will be required to comply with Commonwealth procurement rules. These governance arrangements are consistent with similar arrangements for the Medical Research Future Fund and will help ensure that we achieve the policy outcomes that we are setting out to achieve.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:51): Minister, you didn't answer my question as to whether acknowledgement that we are in a climate crisis—the new reality of less water and hotter and drier conditions—will fundamentally be the underpinning philosophy this drought fund will be based on. I'm asking this question because the evidence I see in this chamber on a daily basis is that this government does not acknowledge that we're in a climate crisis and, basically, the way of dealing with drought is to try and work out how you can squeeze more water out of already overstressed systems.
Can you give me any assurance at all that the new reality—as the Bureau of Meteorology says and as all of the technical and scientific advice tells us—of this drought fund will be in the context of climates right across the country that are hotter and drier, which means that to deal with our water sustainably we need to use less water?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:52): I don't agree, the government doesn't agree and, in fact, the Senate doesn't agree with your proposition of what the underpinning philosophy of this Future Drought Fund should be. As you know, your colleague Senator Whish-Wilson moved a second reading amendment that goes to the issue you raised. That was comprehensively rejected by the Senate. It was a very strong vote. Indeed, I believe that everyone other than the Greens political party voted against the proposition that you have now, again, sought to pursue.
The principle underpinning this measure, from the government's point of view and, I believe, from the overwhelming majority of senators' points of view, is that we want to provide additional support to drought affected regional communities in a fiscally sustainable fashion. This will be done by generating a regular and reliable funding stream that can be used to help fund projects that improve drought resilience and preparedness in drought affected communities. This comes on top of other measures the government has already put in place with bipartisan support. I readily acknowledge and concede that point. But the government doesn't agree with the underpinning philosophy that you assert this measure should be, and the Senate doesn't agree with you.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:54): We've got it clear, at least, that you don't accept that's the underlying philosophy. You don't accept that being in a climate crisis is what needs to underpin any measures that deal with drought. That, then, goes to my first set of amendments, which I wish to move. They are those on sheet 8701, and I seek leave to move all four—(1) to (4)—together.
Leave granted.
Senator RICE: I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8701 together:
(1) Page 21 (after line 24), after clause 22, insert:
22A Arrangements etc. are legislative instruments
(1) The following are legislative instruments:
(a) an arrangement made under section 21;
(b) an agreement made under section 22.
(2) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2) (b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to an instrument mentioned in subsection (1).
(2) Clause 36E, page 36 (lines 4 to 9), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) Before the Drought Minister first makes either an arrangement or a grant under section 21, the Drought Minister must:
(a) request the Committee to advise the Drought Minister about whether the proposed design of the program of arrangements or grants to be made under that section is consistent with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan; and
(b) have regard to any advice that the Committee has given to the Drought Minister under this section in relation to the proposed design.
(3) Clause 36H, page 36 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) Before the Drought Minister appoints a person as a member of the Committee, the process set out in sections 36HA and 36HB must be satisfied.
(4) Page 37 (after line 15), after clause 36H, insert:
36HA Nominations from the public for appointments of members of the Committee
(1) The Drought Minister must publish a written notice on the Agriculture Department's website requesting members of the public to nominate persons to be appointed as a member of the Committee within a period specified in the notice.
(2) If the Drought Minister receives any nominations within the specified period, the Drought Minister must have regard to those nominations before publishing a notice under section 36HB proposing the appointment of a person as a member of the Committee.
36HB Consultation on proposed appointments of members of the Committee
(1) The Drought Minister must publish a written notice:
(a) stating the person the Drought Minister proposes to appoint as a member of the Committee; and
(b) stating whether the person had been nominated by a member of the public (see section 36HA); and
(c) setting out the reasons the Drought Minister is satisfied the person is suitable to be appointed as a member of the Committee; and
(d) requesting written submissions be made in relation to the proposed appointment within 30 days after the notice's publication.
(2) The Drought Minister must have regard to any submissions made within those 30 days in determining whether to appoint the person as a member of the Committee.
Given that we haven't got this understanding that we're in a climate crisis and that everything needs to be focused around how we are going to use less water, because that's the new reality that we're going into, it is absolutely critical that we get the accountability measures of this fund right. It's absolutely critical that we make sure that any decisions that the minister is making are based on good science and what is in the overall interests of the community. We are really worried that that's not going to be the case, because you're ignoring the science as it is at the moment. Given you're doing that, the only way we're going to possibly make up for that is to make sure that there is really good accountability, so that decisions that are being made as to what projects get funded and what the drought resilience plan looks like are transparent and accountable.
I acknowledge there were some significant improvements to this bill when it went through the House in the last parliament, due to amendments by Cathy McGowan, in terms of setting up a consultative committee and making sure the minister had regard to what the consultative committee had to say in terms of establishing the drought plan. But we as Greens don't believe these measures go nearly far enough. First of all, we've got to make sure that the consultative committee also gets asked about the individual projects that are going to be funded under this fund. We've got to make sure that the minister must listen to that committee. At the moment the bill doesn't say that the minister needs to listen to the committee. It says that the minister needs to listen to the committee when it comes to the overall plan, but, as for particular projects, the committee can be consulted and the minister can just ignore what those committee members say. We think this is a really big gap in the accountability of exactly when decisions are made as to which decisions get funded.
This is where it really comes to the crunch. You can have this drought plan, but then the projects that get funded in fact could end up being projects that aren't in the context of using less water and helping to make sure that farmers are more resilient. They could end up being projects that actually support the big irrigators, that support corporate agribusiness, projects that are going to end up taking more water out of the environment. Certainly, that's what I hear the Nationals in this chamber saying all the time—that the whole answer to dealing with drought is just to build new dams. Sadly, when you're in a regime and an environment where it's hotter and drier and less water is falling from the sky, building new dams isn't going to help. What it might do is just suck up even more of the water in the upstream areas and leave even less water for farmers downstream and certainly leave less water for the environments that need water. These are some of the issues that we are addressing in these amendments that I have moved.
The other thing that needs to happen is that, once the decision is made with the advice of the committee, and the minister has listened to the advice of the committee and made some decisions on what grants are being issued or what the arrangements are, those arrangements must be legislative instruments that are disallowable, to add that extra level of transparency and accountability. If it's pretty clear that there are suggestions that there are grants being made to projects that are not consistent with us being in a climate crisis, not consistent with a hotter, drier climate, not consistent with ecological sustainability, the parliament would have the oversight to knock them off and say, 'No, they're not appropriate.'
The final area that we want to make sure to address in these accountability measures is about who actually gets to be on this consultative committee. It's all very well to set up a consultative committee and say that it's going to be an expert committee and you're going to seek advice from the expert committee, but as it stands at the moment the minister can just pick and choose who is going to be on the committee. I can very easily see a scenario where that committee is stacked with people who basically supported the government's position.
The processes that we are proposing in our amendments are that, firstly, there should be a process of calling for submissions for members of the committee. There are lots of people with expertise all across the country, who might like to be considered for or nominated to this committee, who I don't think the government are going to necessarily call upon in the first instance. We would like to see those people have the ability to nominate themselves or have someone nominate them, and for the minister then to have regard to those submissions. If there is clear evidence of some really talented, expert people who have got such a strong case as to why they should be on the committee, the minister should have regard to appointing them. Secondly, these amendments say that once the minister has made some decisions and has some proposals as to who should be on the committee, then that also should be publicly advertised. You put the committee membership up, and people can then make submissions on the appropriateness of those committee members.
If we put those accountability measures in place, they would go a long way to make up for the fact that we've currently got a government that's planning this plan without acknowledging the new reality that we're in. I know that the community around the country accepts we're in a climate crisis. Certainly the scientific community accept we're in a climate crisis. I know those people who are working on the issues of drought and water resources accept we're in a climate crisis. With those accountability measures—actually getting that wisdom from the community; making sure that wisdom is taken account of—it would go a long way to improving accountability and transparency, and would make up for the climate denialism that is currently a feature of this government.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:02): The government will be opposing these amendments. These amendments would require all funding arrangements, every single funding arrangement, to be a disallowable instrument. It would require the minister for drought to ask the consultative committee about whether programs are consistent with the plan and have regard to that further advice. The minister for drought would also be required to call for public nominations for members of the consultative committee and to publish written notice on proposed members and, further, allow 30 days for the public to make submissions on those proposed members. It is entirely unreasonable and unnecessary to expect a tabling of every single funding arrangement, which would include a number of specific grants under the broader programs within each year's allocation of funding. This would cause significant delay and uncertainty.
I would also refer the Senate to section 27A, on page 24 of the bill, which requires the drought minister to publish each amount paid from the fund as soon as practicable, and also to the extensive 42-day consultation process and consultative committee, whose advice must be sought on the disallowable Drought Resilience Funding Plan. The Drought Resilience Funding Plan itself is a disallowable instrument, and it is based on a substantial consultative process.
The consultative committee also must provide advice on the design of the programs under the fund, and the Senate should also note that the Regional Investment Corporation board, which is subject to the strict provisions within the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, must also provide advice to the minister for drought on funding arrangements. In providing that advice, the Regional Investment Corporation must have regard to whether the minister has complied with the widely consulted Drought Resilience Funding Plan.
The Productivity Commission will review the Drought Resilience Funding Plan every four years, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the plan with regard to economic, social and environmental outcomes, as I've previously indicated. This will be a further test of the consistency of the projects with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan. Within those frameworks, and within those robust transparency and governance arrangements, it must be possible for the government of the day, whoever the government of the day is, to make appropriate decisions on the prioritisation of funding allocations. That is what governments are elected to do by the Australian people.
Regarding the public call for nominations to the consultative committee and associated notice and public objection periods, I would remind the Senate that there are already a number of procedural steps that are required to ensure funds are ready to be dispersed from 1 July next year. There is also strict language in the bill that outlines clear requirements around the selection of consultative committee members. I would specifically direct the attention of senators to clause 36H(3), which provides:
(3) A person must not be appointed as a member of the Committee unless the person has expertise or experience in 2 or more of the following areas:
(a) drought resilience measures;
(b) climate risk;
(c) the agriculture industry;
(d) rural and regional community leadership and resilience;
(e) rural and regional development;
(f) applied research;
(g) agricultural extension;
(h) economics
Further, clause 36H(4) also provides:
(4) In appointing a person as a member of the Committee the Drought Minister must ensure that, as far as practicable, there is a balance of gender, knowledge and skills among members of the Committee.
Again, these are ultimately within that framework of the legislation. These are ultimately then decisions to be made by the elected government of the day.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (11:05): Minister, I got it very clear that there will be a board, in your words, that will be formed to develop or find funding for initiatives, measures and projects in drought affected areas. I got that. For the purposes of not putting the Senate through too much pain and of getting that money out there quicker, I won't go on with a 15-minute preamble. Could you tell the Senate how many members will be on that committee?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:06): A chair plus four members.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (11:06): Thanks, Minister. At this stage may I clarify: will there be any form of funding that will go directly to the affected farmers in paying down any of their debt that has been accrued because of the drought?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:06): No. That is not the purpose of the fund.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (11:06): Will there be any financial assistance to those suppliers of regional Australia who also had their businesses greatly affected and had huge debts occur because of effects from the drought?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:07): As I've previously advised the Senate, the plan will determine where the funding is going. The plan will be developed consistent with this legislation through a very robust process. I don't want to detain the Senate either, but I'm happy to go through that process again on how the funding plan is to be developed.
The governance framework for funding decisions under the Future Drought Fund is indeed robust and transparent, with requirements for extensive public consultation in developing the overarching Drought Resilience Funding Plan and consideration of independent expert advice before allocating funds. The funding plan will be informed by advice from the expert consultative committee. It is a disallowable instrument and will be established by the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019. The committee will also advise whether the proposed design of Future Drought Fund programs is consistent with the funding plan, and the Productivity Commission will conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of each funding plan before it expires, including having regard to the economic, social and environmental outcomes. Further, all funding decisions must be consistent with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan and informed by advice from the Regional Investment Corporation board. Programs to be supported under the plan will require approval through the annual budget processes, and funding for projects will be required to comply with Commonwealth procurement rules.
These government arrangements are entirely consistent with similar arrangements for the Medical Research Future Fund, which operates exceedingly well. There is an independent process. That independent process will put in place a plan, and everything that is allocated in terms of funding under that plan will have to be consistent with it.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (11:09): Thanks, Minister. Could you inform the Senate of the communities or the shires that have been declared to be in drought and who will be able to access these initiatives that are funded under this bill?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:09): That is not something that is subject to this legislation. This is legislation to set up a capital fund under the Future Fund, so it is fundamentally Finance portfolio legislation, together with the minister for drought, to establish a funding flow. These issues that you are referring to are matters, obviously, for the agricultural portfolio, which I'm sure they will be prepared to address for you through separate processes.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (11:09): Minister, I'll go to the Bills Digest. I don't expect you to have it in front of you, but on page 4 it talks about payments into and out of the Future Drought Fund Special Account. Halfway down the page, it starts with:
There are only three purposes for which an amount may be debited from the FDF Special Account …
I can probably pre-empt that you'll point me to Senate estimates as being where I will find the information I'm seeking, but, in relation to where the money can be accessed, dot point 2 says:
paying amounts which are exclusively related to the investments of the Future Drought Fund—for example, paying the costs of, or incidental to the acquisition of financial assets by the Future Fund Board …
It goes on to say that money can be taken out by:
paying amounts which are not exclusively related to the investments of the Future Drought Fund—for example paying part of the remuneration and allowances of the Future Fund Board members.
Do we have a figure of what that is?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:11): The specific figure is something that will be reported on a regular basis. And you're right: in Senate estimates you'll be able to ask that question. The principle is entirely reasonable—the Future Fund, which has great expertise in this area, will be providing services to ensure that a fund that currently has got $3.9 billion in it will grow to $5 billion at the same time as making disbursements of $100 million a year from 1 July 2020 every year to help fund additional drought resilience projects. These arrangements, in terms of the way appropriate admin fees are proportionately allocated to this fund, will be consistent with arrangements that have been in place successfully for some time in relation to other relevant funds, in particular the Medical Research Future Fund.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (11:11): Minister, for my last one, could you inform the Senate of when the payments will flow to rural and regional Australia? I understand the committee hasn't been formed yet and hasn't met, but is there a set time for when we can expect that money to hit the ground, so to speak, in these affected communities and areas?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:12): I thank Senator Sterle. Again, this is where it is very important to understand that the government already is, as a matter of course, providing billions and billions of dollars of support to drought affected regional and rural communities. For example, as we speak now, $2 billion has already been allocated to support drought affected areas through additional measures that have been undertaken by our government. The additional funding under this legislation, through the Future Drought Fund, will become available from 1 July 2020, as is made clear in the legislation. There is obviously a body of work to be done should this legislation pass, which we hope it will, to put all the governance arrangements in place and to change the investment mandate and a series of related measures. If this passes, the government will act swiftly. This will mean that we will have a sustainable, reliable, recurring funding stream to boost funding for additional measures to support drought resilience projects by $100 million a year from 1 July 2020, and we will be able to grow this fund to $5 billion over a decade.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:13): Minister, I want to take you to the section of the bill that talks about the appointment of members to the committee. It says:
(3) A person must not be appointed as a member of the Committee unless the person has expertise or experience in 2 or more of the following areas …
And there are eight areas listed:
(a) drought resilience measures;
(b) climate risk;
(c) the agriculture industry;
(d) rural and regional community leadership and resilience;
(e) rural and regional development;
(f) applied research;
(g) agricultural extension;
(h) economics
So the criteria for being appointed as a member is to have expertise or experience in two or more of these areas. Can you confirm that means we can't guarantee that the committee will, in fact, have expertise across all of those areas?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:14): Senator Rice read out the same section of the bill that I've previously read out. The legislation is self-explanatory. As it says in very strict language and very clear language, I would have thought, of the clear requirements around the selection of consultative committee members:
A person must not be appointed as a member of the Committee unless the person has expertise or experience in 2 or more of the following areas …
It makes clear that it is two or more, not anything different.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:15): You haven't answered my question. We've got five members of the committee—the chair and four members—and each has to have expertise in two or more of the 'following areas', but it doesn't say that expertise in all of those areas must be covered by the committee. You could in fact end up not having appointed to this committee scientific experts who are experts in our climate crisis and in climate risk if all five members had expertise in two or more of the other areas. The way this is worded leaves that as a possibility.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:15): I completely reject that proposition, and I would refer Senator Rice again to what I have previously indicated to the chamber, in my contribution when I explained why the government would oppose this amendment. That is, clause 36H(4), which I have previously read out, very specifically provides:
In appointing a person as a member of the Committee the Drought Minister must ensure that, as far as practicable, there is a balance of gender, knowledge and skills among members of the Committee.
Let me say that this is business as usual. Government ministers and the government make judgements all the time about the composition of boards and committees, with a view to making sure there is an appropriate balance across a range of indicators, including of course an appropriate balance of knowledge and skills.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:16): Yes, but you could very well end up with a committee that is extremely heavily weighted in areas other than climate risk and drought resilience. From the Greens perspective, it is absolutely imperative—our ongoing drought is affected by and an impact of the climate crisis we're in. It should have been mandatory that there be on the committee expertise in the areas of climate science and climate risk, but it's not mandatory. Yes, it says, 'as far as practicable,' but I can see your ending up with a committee that, because of the people that the government wants to get on it, does not have expert skills in climate risk and so does not have represented on it a knowledge and an understanding of the climate crisis. The way that it's worded it says that there doesn't have to be. It says that as far as practical there has to be a range of skills and that each member has to have two or more areas. That means you could leave out climate risk or you could have somebody who has pretty low skills and just goes along with whatever the government wants to say on climate risk as the only person on the committee who has that expertise in climate risk, if they're there at all. That is what this legislation allows, and it is why we remain deeply concerned, particularly given, as you confirmed, that the government doesn't accept that we're in a climate crisis and that our increasing climate crisis is the underlying reason why droughts are getting worse, are getting longer and are being spread across the country. There isn't the recognition of how essential it is to have that driving the operations of this drought fund.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:19): Within the framework of the legislation, it is of course up to the elected government of the day to make judgements on the appropriate balance on the board. I hear that the Greens senator from Victoria is concerned about that. What I would say to the honourable senator is that when the Greens next persuade a majority of Australians and a majority of House of Representatives seats to support their agenda for Australia then they will have the opportunity in government to fill these positions according to their priorities and views, but right now that is not the position they are in, and, as such, that is not a decision they get to make.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (11:19): Minister, did you receive advice from the department that climate expertise should be mandatory on this board?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:19): These are policy decisions that are made by the government. The government is putting forward what is an entirely sensible approach to the composition of this committee. It's a set of very clear requirements around the selection of consultative committee members. Indeed, expertise in the area of climate risk is one of the areas that are listed there in terms of the expertise that should be considered. That is the appropriate way of framing it.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (11:20): Did the department advise that an understanding of climate risk, given that it's intimately related to the notions of water supply, was in fact a mandatory inclusion for this board?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:20): The answer is no, and the proposition that there should be a mandatory requirement would be very, very bad governance practice. These are, appropriately, judgements that are made by the elected executive government of the day, whoever that government is.
It is not appropriate and it's not good practice for a legislator to seek to mandate and limit the flexibility of the government in relation to composition of these sorts of boards in the way that you are suggesting. If, as I've indicated before, the Greens want to have that sort of power and authority then they need to persuade a majority of Australians and a majority of House of Representatives seats to support your agenda.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (11:21): With respect, I find what you just said absolutely ridiculous—that it's not logical or not practical for a government to mandate that a scientist be on a board making decisions about distributing water in a climate constrained future. I would ask the minister to reflect on whether he really wants to stand by those comments, that he thinks it's not good practice to have science informing decisions on water allocations, given that we are in a climate crisis.
It doesn't look like the minister is going to rise on that one, so while I'm on my feet: I'm also interested to know whether any advice was received on the quantum of water that's been allocated to fossil fuel companies in these drought declared areas. As my second reading amendment established, it kind of makes a mockery of having a drought fund to help farmers when we've got free, unlimited groundwater going, for example, to Adani, with a 60-year water licence. So I'm interested in whether, if you're going to ignore the climate crisis—well, we think that's patently wrong—you're at least going to get advice on the distribution of water entitlements as they stand at the minute before you decide where to dish this money out to?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:23): My answer to Senator Waters here is the same as my answer to Senator Rice before in relation to a similar question that she raised. The government does not agree with the premise of the proposition that Senator Waters is putting, and the Senate doesn't agree. Of course, as she indicated, she moved a second reading amendment to the effect of dealing with the issue that she's just raised and the Senate comprehensively rejected her proposition.
The Greens, of course, are entitled to their view. The Greens political party is entitled to its view, but a comprehensive majority of senators does not agree with them.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (11:23): Thank you, Minister, but, with respect, my question was, 'Do you have the information assembled for you, or for the board?'
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:23): This bill does not deal with the matters that she is seeking to bring in. This is a bill to set up a capital fund to generate a reliable, recurrent funding stream to support additional drought resilience projects across Australia consistent with a funding plan that is to be put in place and consistent with the arrangements that I've spelt out already.
I understand the political points that the Greens are seeking to make here today, but the truth is that neither the government nor a majority of senators agrees with their views.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (11:24): Thank you, Minister. I just find it quite unbelievable that you have a committee set up to administer much-needed drought relief but they don't have to have climate scientists in their ranks and you've paid no attention to the distribution of existing water allocations and the billions of litres of free water that have been overallocated to fossil fuel companies when you're trying to make decisions about the drought. So you'll forgive us for a little bit of cynicism here.
I might point out that this is not our political position; this is actually what the science is saying. So, by all means, take umbrage at our political perspective, but it is incredibly disheartening when this government continues to have such a tin ear to science. These scientists are not political activists; they're not simply seeking more research funding; they are crying out to be heard. And you've got a drought body that doesn't even have to have a climate scientist on it and that hasn't looked at the distribution of water allocations which, in fact, is exacerbating the drought—the very thing that you're purporting to relieve with this funding body. So we remain incredulous at the poor structures that you are establishing and the continued refusal to listen to the science.
I'm afraid I don't have a question. I'm gobsmacked.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8701 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [11:30]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)
Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:34): by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) on sheet 8702 together:
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 1 to 4), omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Building Australia Fund".
(2) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 4 to 10), omit the definitions of Building Australia Fund and Building Australia Fund Special Account.
(3) Clause 9, page 10 (lines 7 to 10), omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Building Australia Fund".
(5) Clause 17, page 16 (line 33), omit "; or", substitute ".".
(6) Clause 17, page 16 (lines 34 to 36), omit subparagraph (f) (iii).
These Greens amendments remove the source of the funding for this drought fund from the Building Australia Fund. We are deeply concerned about the proposition that the money to be used for tackling drought should come from the Building Australia Fund. It makes no sense whatsoever that money that we should be spending on essential transport infrastructure gets ripped out when that's where the money needs to go. We know that it is farcical. We do not need to be ripping money out of transport infrastructure to be able to pay for drought relief. We note that this has been the Labor Party's main objection to this bill, and so I am really looking forward to having the Labor Party supporting these amendments. I'm surprised they didn't move amendments themselves to do this.
We've got a situation where you don't need to rip money out of transport infrastructure in order to fund drought works. There are plenty of other places the government could get money from. The government could get money from consolidated revenue. Of course, we have given the very sensible suggestion that maybe we should be getting the money for tackling drought from the big fossil fuel companies that are doing their best to worsen the drought. In particular, my second reading amendment to this bill proposes we use this as an opportunity to fix up the most rorted tax that operates in Australia—in fact, doesn't operate in Australia—the petroleum resource rent tax, which has failed to bring in any money out of digging up the oil and gas. Basically we are giving our oil and gas away to the huge fossil fuel companies. Our suggestion was: how about let's at least take a very small amount, 10 per cent, of their profits, a flat floor, so that at least 10 per cent of the profits of the oil and gas companies in their mining and export of oil and gas could actually fund the works that are needed to tackle the consequences of the mining of that oil and gas, to tackle dealing with drought as a result of our climate crisis?
The Greens have done the numbers, and they show that if you just had that as a 10 per cent floor, a 10 per cent Commonwealth royalty, it would raise $4.9 billion over the next two years. The government would have its fund funded in two years and, of course, the royalties could keep on building so that, by the end of a decade, there would be a decent amount of money that could be invested in the works that are going to be needed to deal with the ongoing drought and the consequences of climate change, because they are going to cost a lot.
We have governments that don't want to do anything to mitigate climate change. We know the costs of those droughts, the costs of not having enough water, the costs of sea level rise are going to keep on rising and rising and rising. So here's an opportunity to actually acknowledge that and here's an opportunity to then say, 'Well, if you're getting the money from that source, you don't need to get it from the Building Australia Fund.'
I've heard the government's argument: 'The Building Australia Fund hasn't been drawn upon in the last five years, so therefore you don't need the money.' That's because the government hasn't wanted to take the money from the Building Australia Fund because there are some conditions attached to the moneys in that fund. They have got to be spent on projects that have the tick from Infrastructure Australia, so there actually has to be some accountability. Where is the government saying, 'We are spending $100m on infrastructure'? There is plenty of money being spent on the government's own pet projects that serve their own vested interests rather than having the accountability that is required by having projects that have been through a proper assessment as per Infrastructure Australia.
I think this is a very sensible suite of amendments. We don't need to take the money away from the much-needed transport infrastructure in our cities and our regions when we could get the money from a much more appropriate source. So I really do look forward to getting the support right across the chamber, particularly from the Labor Party. I mean, they didn't vote with us on the very sensible accountability measures that we just voted on. I'm disappointed that that was the case—but not surprised—because they were measures that would have put in place a few more checks and balances as to how this money is to be spent. They are the sorts of things I would have thought Labor would have been very supportive of and supported the Greens on to make sure that this drought fund doesn't end up being just a slush fund for the National Party. But, no, for their own reasons, the Labor Party decided they weren't going to support those very sensible amendments and voted against them. I really hope that that's not the case with this set of amendments.
As I said, these are amendments that the Labor Party should have moved themselves, given their professed concern about taking money out of our transport infrastructure. I think it is a very sensible suite of amendments that would mean that we wouldn't need to fund drought by ripping money out of essential transport infrastructure. We could fund it, instead, by getting royalties from oil and gas companies.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:40): The government opposes these amendments. But, in opposing, let me just say: I'm getting increasingly confused by what the Greens stand for. I mean, the other day we had former Greens leader Bob Brown fighting against renewable wind energy, having previously opposed renewable hydro energy, and now we've got Senator Rice from the Greens political party fighting for more money for roads. I mean, what happened to the Greens? If you keep going, you might end up coming to our side and voting for income tax cuts at some point in the future! The truth is that the government has significantly boosted federal funding for infrastructure, just in the last budget, from $75 billion to $100 billion. So our pipeline of infrastructure investment over the medium term has increased by $25 billion—just in our last budget.
For the reasons that we indicated during the second reading summing up, we don't support these amendments. In relation to the issue of the PRRT and the royalties that Senator Rice raised, she knows that the Senate has already voted overwhelmingly to reject that proposition—and it is not really captured in this amendment anyway.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:42): Senator Cormann, the Greens initiated the Senate inquiry into the PRRT nearly three years ago. It was chaired by previous Labor senator Chris Ketter and championed by previous Labor senator Sam Dastyari. The inquiry went for about 15 months, and we took substantial evidence on what was wrong with the PRRT. In fact, on the last day of our hearings in Perth, the Callaghan review, which was the government's own review into the PRRT, was literally released the minute our hearing opened in Perth. Of course, we hadn't had time to scrutinise it, nor had many of our witnesses—
Senator Cormann: On a point of order: this is a bill to deal with the establishment of the Future Drought Fund. Nothing in this bill, in any way, shape or form, is connected to the PRRT or any Senate inquiries in the past related to the PRRT. His contribution is completely irrelevant and out of order.
The CHAIR: I do remind all senators, and Senator Whish-Wilson, that questions or comments need to be relevant to the bill, so I'll listen to your contribution, Senator Whish-Wilson.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I know you will listen to my contribution. I'll make it very clear that I have a second reading amendment exactly on this subject. This goes directly to how we should be funding any future spend on drought in our rural and regional communities in Australia.
The Greens put forward a simple proposition that polluters should pay and that big fossil fuel companies—big oil and gas companies—should pay. These are the same companies that want to chase profits, feed more greed and go offshore in the Great Australian Bight and open up new areas for oil and gas at a time we desperately need to transition to clean energy. These are the same companies that pay little tax in this country. It is a very, very good idea, which I absolutely think will pass the pub test in any rural and regional part of this country, that the big polluters should actually be paying for the droughts that they are helping to create. So it is directly relevant to the discussion here today.
If I can go back to the final hearing we had in Perth, we had there some of the biggest fossil fuel companies, some of the biggest polluters on the planet, some of whom, such as Chevron, pay no corporate income tax or PRRT tax. The minute we opened our inquiry in Perth, the government released its Callaghan review, which was its flaccid attempt to change the PRRT. They know—and, Senator Cormann, you know—that that petroleum resource rent tax regime has not delivered for the Australian people. It was set up at a time way before the development of oil and gas and the value-added processing we have seen with massive projects like Gorgon off the North West Shelf. It is not fit for purpose. It is nearly 35 years old. You knew it needed to be changed, and you implemented a review which essentially recommended that the government change it, and what have you done? You've fiddled around the edges. You've changed some of the compounding rates around companies being able to take tax deductions on exploration expenditure and on operating expenditure. You've fiddled around with some of those compounding rates, but, nevertheless, the amount of money that has been dodged by some of the biggest and wealthiest oil and gas companies—some of the dirtiest polluters on the planet, as Senator Di Natale outlined today—was nearly $350 billion.
The CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, further on the point of order, I am struggling here. I'm looking at your second reading amendment which you referred me to, which talks about the Bureau of Meteorology.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: It was Senator Rice's amendment. My apologies, Chair.
The CHAIR: I beg your pardon. Continue on, but we will look at Senator Rice's amendment. Thank you.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Perhaps I could ask Hansard to change my earlier contribution.
The CHAIR: They will, because they've heard your explanation.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Nevertheless, while we're on it, let's talk about my second reading amendment, because that was acknowledging that climate change is contributing to the biggest and worst drought since temperature records began in this country, which is happening right now. We acknowledge the suffering that rural communities are currently going through. We want acknowledged in this chamber and by this government that climate change is the driver of this record drought and the record misery that our rural communities are going through, and we want a government that actually acts on the underlying causes of that climate change.
If I could get back to Senator Rice's second reading amendment, which is on how we pay for this, it's a critical part of the bill. How we appropriate in legislation and new laws to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on a critical area like mitigating the effects of drought and adapting rural and regional areas to drought is essentially at the heart of this bill. We've raised concerns about giving that money to the National Party when they've so completely rorted and stuffed up a number of public programs in rural and regional areas, and we've raised concerns about how that's going to be funded. It's a simple principle that polluters should pay. These big oil and gas companies pay nothing in tax at the moment. It is not fair. It would pass no pub test in this country.
This is a very good amendment that I recommend to senators and to this chamber: that we actually fix the PRRT and take this opportunity now to put a floor on the tax rate that means polluters have to pay money now—not indefinitely defer it into the future but pay Australians now, pay farmers who are suffering now and pay for the pollution that they are creating and the climate catastrophe that they have helped create.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:48): I know we can't ask, but, given that we've got this proposal to remove the Building Australia Fund as the source of the funds for this drought fund, and given the Labor Party's position on it, I'm surprised that we're not hearing from the Labor Party as to whether they support or do not support this Greens amendment.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:48): It's pretty clear what's going on here. What we've got is a bill from a government that's prepared to establish a slush fund for the National Party so that it can continue to hand out money to its big corporate irrigator mates to do nothing about the underlying problem of drought and nothing about dangerous climate change, and we've got the Labor Party, who are giving the government everything that it wants. What on earth is going on here? You lost an election, and you're on track to lose the next one if you keep giving this mob everything that it wants. Take a stand and show a bit of courage, for goodness sake.
You said, in your opposition to this bill, that you were concerned that money was coming out of infrastructure, and that was the right concern. You were absolutely spot on that you've got a government prepared to rip money out of public infrastructure and funnel it into what is a National Party rort—another one. We saw what they did with the Murray-Darling Basin. They basically decided that they were going to rip off taxpayers, they were going to reward some of their biggest corporate donors and they were going to refuse to deal with the substantial issues when it came to drought and its impact on the Murray-Darling Basin.
You've said you don't support money being ripped out of infrastructure. You also said in the last chamber—and you were absolutely right in the lower house—that, unless you've got a plan to deal with climate change, you've got no plan to deal with drought. Again: spot on. Senator Whish-Wilson moved an amendment that you supported in the lower house, which it appears you've now rejected here. And now, when it comes to funding for infrastructure, you're going to roll over again.
See, it doesn't matter what you say; it matters what you do. You vote with the government, despite criticising them for a bill that you know is going to do nothing to fix the issue of climate change, which is fuelling drought; a bill that you know is going to put more power in the hands of a minister who's shown himself to be completely incapable of allocating funding on the basis of what's required rather than rewarding donors and mates. You roll over; you capitulate; you give in again. You did it on the foreign fighters legislation. You're doing it now on this drought legislation. Before the election, you refused to support this bill. Now, after the election, you're going to support it without even passing an amendment that you yourself support.
People right around the country are asking themselves, 'What the hell does the Labor Party stand for anymore?' People around the country are saying: 'We need an opposition to stand up to these guys. We need an opposition that's prepared to say: "We don't agree with you. This is why. We're going to go out and fight for our position."' You don't beat the conservatives by becoming a conservative. It's one thing to say you don't support what they're doing; it's another thing altogether to vote for what they're doing, and that's what you're doing right now. We're seeing this play out over and over and over again. 'We don't support the government's legislation on this drought bill. We don't support it, because they've got no plan to deal with climate change, they're ripping money out of infrastructure, they're putting too much money in the minister's hands.' Then vote against it! Vote against it! You don't support action on foreign fighters, because it ignores the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. A bipartisan committee—that we don't like, because it's a closed shop—makes a set of bipartisan recommendations and is ignored by Peter Dutton, so you go out publicly and say, 'We don't like it.' But what do you do? You vote for it. Take a stand. Show some courage. You lost an election. This wasn't a takeover of the Labor Party; you lost an election.
Here we've got a sensible amendment from Senator Janet Rice that says, 'If you want to fund drought, you make sure you don't rip money out of infrastructure funding.' We had a sensible amendment that said, 'If the minister's going to fund a range of projects, they should at least be advised by a group of experts with knowledge and expertise in this field.' You voted against that. And now it looks like you're about to vote against all of the things that you said were wrong with this bill. The Australian people right now are asking, 'What does the Labor Party stand for?' We want someone to take it up to this mob, and, if you won't, we will.
The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) to (3), (5) and (6) on sheet 8702 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [11:58]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR (12:02): The question is that clauses 11, 12 and 64 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [12:03]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:07): I advise the Senate that the amendments on sheet 8707 were consequential to those on sheet 8702, and I withdraw them. I seek leave to move on Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 8704 together.
Leave granted.
Senator RICE: I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 8704 together:
(1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 25), after the definition of person, insert:
prohibited financial asset: a financial asset is a prohibited financial asset if the financial asset includes an interest in a body corporate that produces fossil fuels.
(2) Clause 39, page 41 (line 23), at the end of subclause (1), add "that are not prohibited financial assets".
(3) Clause 41, page 43 (line 30) to page 44 (line 6), omit subclause (7), substitute:
(7) A direction under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument.
(8) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraphs 44(2) (b) and 54(2) (b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) and Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of that Act apply to a direction under subsection (1).
(4) Heading to clause 54, page 50 (line 25), at the end of the heading, add "etc.".
(5) Clause 54, page 50 (line 31), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; or (c) an asset held by the Board as an investment of the Future Drought Fund is, or has become, a prohibited financial asset.
This is another opportunity for the Senate to support some very sensible amendments that draw the link and make the connection between the climate crisis that we are now in and tackling drought. They connect tackling drought with tackling the climate crisis. Not tackling the climate crisis is just like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. We've got to do both at once. Perhaps the Labor Party, who profess that they want to do something about climate change, might like to vote with us on this one?
Senator Watt: The Greens are talking about Labor again?
The CHAIR: Order! Senator Watt, it is disorderly to call out, particularly when you are not in your own seat.
Senator RICE: What is the point of Labor, one might ask, when for the whole debate on this bill they were saying that they were opposed to this bill because it withdrew funds from the Building Australia Fund? Yet we just had a vote where the Labor Party could have supported us but voted against our amendment that would have stopped ripping money out of the Building Australia Fund.
Labor had every opportunity to vote with the Greens. In fact, the numbers in this Senate mean that if Labor had voted with the Greens we would have had the potential to actually change the legislation, to have achieved something. We would've had the potential to make sure that this drought fund didn't rip money out of infrastructure. The numbers very well could have been there in this Senate, because the fact that it was ripping money out of transport infrastructure was a very important aspect of this bill; it was what Labor had been rabbiting on about for the last fortnight. They had the opportunity to join with us to actually change what was in the legislation—to achieve results and actually improve the legislation. That is what we do in the Senate: we consider legislation and we move amendments to it. And we could've successfully moved that amendment—but no.
For whatever reason, Labor have decided that they're cuddling up to the government, not being an opposition; they're rolling over and having their tummies tickled. It is just so distressing! I mean, there are the numbers in this Senate to achieve good things. The government does not have the control of this Senate. There was the opportunity here to improve this bill, and Labor squibbed it.
But here we go: I'm presenting you with another opportunity. I'm presenting it to the government as well. But, then again, given that the government don't accept that we're in a climate crisis—they're in total climate denial—sadly, I'm not expecting them to support it. This goes to the fact that we're setting up a fund that's going to have $5 billion in it. This fund is going to be invested. What's critically important is that this fund is not investing in fossil fuels—the very things that are causing our climate crisis. We know why we're in a climate crisis. It's because we continue to burn coal and gas and oil. And, to tackle our climate crisis, we need to be rapidly reducing the coal and gas and oil that we are burning.
One way—a powerful way—that governments have of sending a message to say that we want to be rapidly reducing the amount of coal and gas and oil we burn is to not invest in them and to say: 'We, as a government, accept the reality of climate change. We accept that we need to be getting out of the mining and burning of coal and gas and oil. Therefore, we're not going to invest in them.' Given that this is a drought fund and given that the reason we are in severe drought is because of our climate crisis, I would've thought that was a very prudent thing to do.
It is the height of cynicism, the height of hypocrisy, to have a fund that's dealing with drought while at the same time saying: 'Let the climate crisis rip. Let's just keep on keeping on with the burning of coal and gas and oil.' We can't do that. It is absolutely abrogating our responsibility to future generations to create a safe climate for our children and grandchildren and to actually have a healthy environment that we can all feel positive about and can be working towards. It's an abrogation of that responsibility to continue to invest in the very thing that is causing our climate crisis and the very thing that is causing the droughts that, as the minister said in his opening statement, are with us and just ongoing. Yes, they are. It's because of climate change. Yes, we've always had droughts in this country, but the droughts are getting worse; they are getting longer; they are getting more intense. The Bureau of Meteorology, our experts on our climate, have said that the drought that we are currently experiencing is the worst in Australia's history and it is affected by climate change. It is only the worst because of the impacts of climate change.
It is up to all of us here to be doing something about that. These amendments are a very significant way of doing something about that—of actually making sure that the drought fund that is going to be repairing the impacts of climate change is not, at the same time, investing in the very things that are causing it. These amendments on sheet 8704 would mean that the drought fund would not invest in coal and gas and oil. Furthermore, that would then be included in the investment mandate for this fund, and furthermore these amendments say that this fund should again be a disallowable instrument, to make sure that the investment mandate is as it should be—that it is taking the reality of our climate catastrophe into account. These aren't extreme measures; they aren't unthought of. They're the sort of things that governments all around the world are doing. It's good governance in this age of our climate crisis. These are the very things that good governments do. If they are serious about tackling climate change then they need to be serious, and we need to be serious, about not investing in the very things that are causing it.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 8704 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [12:19]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:23): I will start by noting the outcome of that division, where it was just the Greens who voted in support of our proposal that the drought fund should divest itself from coal, gas and oil and from those companies that are the cause of climate change. I will reflect on what that means. It means that the Senate has just voted to say that it is perfectly okay for the drought fund to invest in Glencore, in Santos, in Woodside Petroleum and in the Adani Group. It means, basically, that it's perfectly okay for the drought fund to invest in the companies that are profiting from the very causes of our climate crisis, that are profiting from the ongoing use of coal, gas and oil and from the ongoing burning, mining and export of coal, gas and oil. They are the very things that are contributing to our climate crisis, that are causing our climate crisis.
That's actually in complete opposition to what BHP have come out with. They've said: 'This is serious. This is a climate emergency.' BHP are divesting out of coal because they recognise that it's not a going thing into the future, that the world needs to change, that if we are to have a future we've got to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that we've got to stop our over-reliance on them and that we've got to stop our fossil fuel dependency. Yet, despite the science saying that and despite companies like BHP saying that, this Senate does not accept that reality. This Senate is in denial. This Senate is not taking the future of Australia, Australians and our future generations seriously. It is vesting in them such a damaged future, and I find that appalling. I move amendment (1) on sheet 8703:
(1) Page 22 (after line 29), after clause 25, insert:
25A Consistency with the Water Act 2007
(1) Before making an arrangement or a grant under section 21 that affects Basin water resources (within the meaning of the Water Act 2007), the Drought Minister must request the Murray‑Darling Basin Authority provide written advice as to whether the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007.
(2) The Authority must provide the written advice requested by the Drought Minister as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the request.
(3) The Drought Minister may make the arrangement or grant if the Authority advises the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007.
(4) The Drought Minister must cause the publication of the Authority's advice on the Agriculture Department's website as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the advice.
This amendment to the Future Drought Fund Bill requires the drought plan to be consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I note that in the bill there is a requirement for the drought plan to be consistent with Regional Investment Corporation activities. I think it is highly appropriate—in fact, much more important—that any projects funded under this fund and the plan that will come out of this legislation are consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan.
I wouldn't have thought this would be controversial. Yes, we've all got our various views about how effective the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is and how effective the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be, but it is the plan that we have for the management of water across our agricultural regions, across all of the incredibly important agricultural areas in eastern Australia. It should be straightforward to make sure that any plans that come out of this drought fund are consistent with that and to make sure that, if there is any uncertainty in legislation as to which one should have primacy, it should be the plans of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This is good planning. Water is a scarce resource. In terms of the Murray-Darling, it's the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that sets out how water gets allocated, and anything impacting upon that should be consistent with the operations of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:28): In relation to what Senator Rice has just mentioned about fossil fuel companies and about how mining in Australia is having a detrimental effect on the drought throughout Australia, I'd like to ask the minister if there is any evidence of that. Has any research been done to actually say that the fossil fuels mined in Australia have caused, and are causing, the drought in Australia, which is affecting our Australian farmers?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:28): I'm not aware of any such research. Obviously, Australia has experienced droughts for ever and ever. That is just a function of the country we live in, and that's why we've got to come up with ever better measures to deal with the drought. Before the Senate we have an important measure to help support regional communities with projects to further improve their drought resilience and preparedness.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:29): Also in relation to comments from Senator Rice with regard to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the Water Act, can the minister give me any evidence or assure me that it will actually help those drought affected people, including up at Longreach, where people have been in drought for eight years? In relation to what Senator Rice has put in her amendment in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, is there any evidence that it will have any impact on drought affected areas throughout Queensland?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:29): I thank Senator Hanson for that question. The amendment that Senator Rice has moved and which we are opposing would make things worse for the farmers that you're concerned about, Senator Hanson. That is because it would impose a further requirement to first seek written advice from the Murray Darling Basin Authority around funding arrangements, which would unreasonably add further delay to the disbursement of funding to support projects to support them.
The drought minister, of course, has already the ability to seek further advice under clause 28(4) if and when that is required and appropriate. The decision-maker, which is the minister, already has to abide by the Water Act when making a decision. So the amendment is superfluous and adds unnecessary red tape. The additional red tape would mean that those drought affected farmers around Australia who could benefit from the additional support from this fund would have to wait longer for that support.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:30): The Greens have made a claim today that this whole fund has been set up as a slush fund for the National Party to fund their corporations and their big mates. Can the government give me assurance about where this money will be spent—where the $100 million a year that we put into the fund will be going—and of the accountability of this fund? I don't think the Australian people would be very happy if it was a slush fund for the National Party. The people of Australia have the right to know exactly where the money is going and who it will benefit and help.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:31): I thank Senator Hanson for that question. I can 100 per cent reassure Senator Hanson and the Senate that this is not a slush fund for the National Party. This is a very important capital fund that will help generate a reliable, secure, sustainable funding stream which will see an additional $100 million every year go into projects to improve drought resilience and preparedness in rural and regional communities impacted by the drought.
I have previously put on the record the very stringent governance measures that are in place to protect the integrity of the decision-making process. The governance framework for funding decisions under the Future Drought Fund is robust and transparent. In particular, it involves requirements for extensive public consultation in developing the overarching Drought Resilience Funding Plan and consideration of independent expert advice before allocating funds. Indeed, the Future Drought Fund programs will have published guidelines, where appropriate, to ensure all applicants are treated equitably and selected based on merit. Grant programs would be developed in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017. Future Drought Fund procurements will be accountable and transparent in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules 2018. There is an extensive governance framework in place that will help ensure all of the decisions that are made to allocate funding are based on merit.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:32): We know that there is no time limit on drought. Drought has affected Australia for over 100 years and will continue to do so unless we can put in the resources that are needed. Is there a time limit on this bill and, if so, what is it?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:33): That's a very good question. No, there is no time limit, but obviously I would expect that after the fund has been in place for a period there will be a review into its effectiveness and further judgements can be made about the future at that point. This capital fund will start with $3.9 billion invested. It is expected, based on the investment mandate that the Treasurer and I will issue, that the capital in the fund will grow to $5 billion within the decade, while at the same time disbursing an additional $100 million every year from 1 July 2020 to fund investment in projects to help drought-proof and improve the drought resilience and preparedness of rural and regional communities.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:34): What is of concern to a lot of Australians is that we set up these administrative bodies and see a lot of the money intended to go to those people that need it is caught up in administrative cost and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. What assurance can you give that the majority, if not all, of the money will be going to those needy farmers and people to help them?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:34): I thank Senator Hanson. One hundred per cent of the $100 million will go directly to them. But, of course, there will be appropriate provision for administrative costs in terms of the administration of the capital funds, which is consistent with what applies to the Medical Research Future Fund and other funds. The Future Fund is a very efficient organisation with a very low administration cost ratio, and we expect that to continue into the future.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:35): Minister, I am aware that this bill is for resilience and for helping those on the land to actually put in place better usage of water. But will the government be looking beyond this to put in dams, water projects and infrastructure projects in the foreseeable future that will help our farmers?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:35): The answer to that question from Senator Hanson is yes. This is only one part of an overall approach. The government does have a commitment to a substantial infrastructure program, including investment in dams where that can be part of an overall approach to help drought-proof Australia. This is one component of a broader policy approach and a commitment from the government to support drought affected areas across Australia.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:36): I was just wondering if the minister could rule out whether Mr Joyce would have any role or be consulted or get his mitts on any of this money at any point.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ): I'm not sure that 'mitts' is an appropriate word.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:36): It is obviously an entirely inappropriate question. I have extensively explained to the Senate what the government's arrangements are, how the board will be appointed, how it will be composed and who will make the decisions, and I think it's very clear to the Senate how that all operates.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:36): I feel offended on behalf of Barnaby Joyce. The member of the lower house is not here to defend himself against the comment that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young made, and I would like it withdrawn.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
The committee divided. [12:41]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fierravanti-Wells)
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:44): Referring to my speech on the second reading, I move Centre Alliance amendment (1) on sheet 8717 relating to the constitution of the advisory committee:
(1) Clause 36H, page 37 (lines 12 to 15), omit subclause (4), substitute:
(4) In appointing a person as a member of the Committee, the Drought Minister must ensure, as far as practicable, the following:
(a) there is a balance of gender, knowledge and skills among members of the Committee;
(b) the membership of the Committee represents a balance of different regions across Australia affected, or that could be affected, by drought.
Question agreed to.
Bills, as amended, agreed to.
Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:45): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ): The question is that the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, as amended, and the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 be read a third time.
The Senate divided. [12:49]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fierravanti-Wells)
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Kuranda Range Road
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (12:54): Having access to reliable, safe roads is crucial to businesses, farms and families in regional parts of Queensland, but in many places it's more a case of wishful thinking. Very few places typify that more than the Kuranda Range road, west of Cairns in Far North Queensland.
I would like senators present to imagine desperately needing to get to hospital, work, school or catch a plane, and the only way to get there is 11 kilometres of winding, accident prone, heavily congested road. At the time of Cyclone Yasi the road was gridlocked and an emergency exit blocked. Now, imagine there's a head-on collision ahead and traffic is backed up in front and back. The clock is ticking. Your only alternatives are to wait and hope the debris is cleared quickly or do a U-turn and drive an hour to the nearest thoroughfare, hoping there isn't another accident there. What if you're in the back of an ambulance in cardiac arrest? What if you're about to give birth? What if you're heading to a potentially life-changing interview? This is the reality for thousands of people in North Queensland needing to get to Cairns on the Kuranda Range road. This 11-kilometre stretch is the main entry point to Cairns from the Atherton Tablelands, the gulf and Cape York. This is a huge area, comprising the bustling town of Mareeba and other towns such as Dimbulah and Chillagoe in the vast Savannah region. Further north we have the communities of Lakeland, Laura and Coen, and then the cattle stations and Aboriginal communities. Cairns is the major regional centre for all of them, and most people in these outlying areas need to get to Cairns several times a year.
Apart from the permanent residents, about 80,000 tourists visit Cape York, using Cairns and Mareeba as launch pads, and most of these people start their cape journeys on the Kuranda Range road. Just this month, the Cairns Post reported the road was closed 130 times in the 2018-19 financial year. If there was only one access point to Brisbane and it was closed this often it would have been fixed very quickly. But gulf and cape communities are being ignored. They already face complete isolation in the annual wet season when nothing and no-one can get in or out via land routes. But when the roads are open they then have to hope the Kuranda Range is clear.
Kuranda Range road has an average weekly cost of $871,992 due to fatalities, hospitalisations, injuries, and property damage. There are, on average, 2.5 fatalities per year; 1.2 hospitalisations per week—one injury every four days—and 1.3 vehicles damaged every week. Nearly 9,000 vehicles per day traverse the road, and this already exceeds its designated daily capacity by 1,686 vehicles. At last count, there are 1.3 unplanned closures per week. The economic loss of this is yet to be costed, but it will be significant. The nearest alternative route, Gillies highway, is 91 kilometres away, but nearly once a month this alternative route has an unplanned closure at the same time.
It's not just people who rely on the Kuranda Range road. Businesses stake their reputations and viability on it. Mareeba mayor Tom Gilmore, who's a longstanding servant to the north and who has long voted for this project, tells me it is costing millions and millions of dollars a year of economic activity in the cape, tablelands and gulf that depends on this road, and he has already seen negative impacts because of projects that cannot proceed. A proposed 200-room eco-resort development at the top of the Kuranda Range—which would mean jobs in Cairns and the surrounding community—is on hold because the Department of Transport and Main Roads has concerns about the increased traffic the resort would cause.
The bends on the road are so tight that B-double trucks have to unhitch one of their trailers, make one trip, then turnaround, pick up the other trailer, bring it up or down and then hitch it up again. Some may say that the Far North's population can't support major government expenditure on roads. But this is not about existing populations. It's about potential. There will always be more development, population growth, tourism and traffic, but the Far North is being hamstrung because the Queensland Labor government has been sitting on a report since 2004—that's 15 years—that investigated options for getting traffic up and down the range more safely and efficiently. Far North Queensland ROC's assessment of the impacts states:
Modern freight-efficient vehicles will seek alternative routes and possibly draw business away from Cairns. This could affect the economic performance of the Atherton Tablelands, Cape York Peninsula and Gulf of Carpentaria due to increasingly uncompetitive freight prices. Industries likely to be particularly affected are agriculture and mining.
It beggars belief that Cairns and the entire Far North, cape, gulf and tablelands are being held to ransom by their own Labor state government, that is more interested in getting people to work in Brisbane two minutes faster on the Cross River Rail but won't invest in a road that is so pivotal to a whole region and its people.
The Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils has lobbied government for years to act on this road. This group's comprehensive studies and reports found increased freight costs and loss of economic development activities, an inability to accommodate urban and economic growth, increased travel time and cost, loss of tourism trade, reduced access for residents to services located in Cairns and poor reliability.
In 2004—again, 15 years ago—it was found:
The existing road has severe geometric and structural inadequacies that result in:
Poor safety
Poor economic performance (travel times, vehicle operating costs and inability to accommodate freight-efficient vehicles), and
Poor reliability
Capacity problems that will restrict growth at even modest rates and certainly prohibit orderly urban development on the northern Tablelands, and
Inability to accommodate freight-efficient vehicles and consequential excessive cost of freight transport.
The Department of Main Roads in the terms of reference for the Integrated Transport study identified the existing Kuranda Range Road:
Is likely to experience unacceptable levels of service for road transport by 2005 if current growth continues;
And those growth rates have far exceeded the estimated rates that were recorded then. The study also found that the road:
Has a poor safety record;
Has inadequacies in terms of:
vertical and horizontal alignment;
road width;
… … …
drainage;
potential for tree falls;
accommodating emergency vehicles when the road is blocked by accidents, earth slips or treefall;
Is a barrier to fauna movement and experiences large numbers of road-kills.
Far North Queensland ROC estimates that $21 million is needed for a strategic assessment and business case, and I fully support them in seeking this funding.
Any work done on the Kuranda Range road should be done with a view to improving the capacity of infrastructure and transport systems to respond to new and emerging challenges and pressures and to lessen the need for high-cost new infrastructure; to improving the environmental performance of infrastructure and transport systems, including mitigating adverse environmental effects such as transport emissions; and to continuing a focus on transport safety. Of course, it should be added that any work must be done sooner rather than later.
Superannuation
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (13:02): I am very pleased to be back here in the 46th Parliament. Welcome to all those new senators on the other side and on our side. I look forward to continuing the good work of the Senate. I particularly take note of Senator McDonald's recent contributions and applaud her for advocating for safer roads and greater road investment. It's a subject we'll have much cooperation on.
But today I want to speak about an issue which I have a really strong interest in and which I mentioned in my first speech in this place, and that's superannuation. I'll declare an interest upfront: I've been a member of an industry super fund since 1987, I've been a director of an industry super fund, I've chaired an investment committee of an industry super fund, I've chaired a complaints and appeals committee of an industry super fund, and I've also worked on marketing, sponsorship and general duties as a trustee director. Like everything in this place, you come here with a modicum of experience and exposure. I have a reasonable amount of experience and exposure in this sector.
One of the first duties of the new parliament is to form its committees, and I've been fortunate enough to be placed in the role of deputy chair of the Economics Legislation Committee. The first item of business that we got was the reintroduction of a lapsed bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019. Like everything this government seems to touch, it came in in a very disorderly and shambolic way. The referral from the Selection of Bills Committee to the economics committee gave a reporting date of 19 October and an operative date of the bill of 1 October. It's pretty well impossible to report on a bill that is already supposed to be enacted!
So that caused the committee to convene. Debate ensued and the government's numbers ensured that there was an earlier reporting date for submissions and an earlier reporting date for the inquiry. There'll be debate in the Senate after the legislation's introduced and there will have to have a vote of the Senate to make sure that this piece of legislation is dealt with. That's all fine. That will take its normal course through the economics committee and the like.
I want to go back to the business of super. I heard a senator state in this chamber when taking note yesterday that superannuation is broken, that our $2.7 trillion superannuation industry in this country is broken. I could not believe that statement. I'll have to go back and check his CV to see where he gathered that experience, knowledge and exposure to make that statement in this chamber. I am looking forward to the next three years of continual battle on this front, because, far from being broken, it is world leading. We have done it better in Australia than has anywhere else in the world. Despite all of the decries on the other side, within and without parliament, due diligence, governance and the measure of success in industry super funds is exemplar. We are the exemplar. In the royal commission, the retail funds had most of the problems. I'm not saying that we were without a problem but most of the problems are on the retail side of the funds.
Let's go to the simple analogy that's been put in this bill, which is that young Australian citizens under 25 don't need insurance, don't need TPD and don't need income protection. That's the proposition that's being put here, because it will be illegal to put that insurance in without their explicit instruction. Let's go to one of the most reputable funds in industry super, which is Rest, with 1.2 million members. The effect of this bill would be to excise 40 per cent of those 1.2 million members from having access to insurance in case of death, TPD in case of illness and income protection in case of temporary inability to work. So 400,000-plus young Australians, who are probably not looking at superannuation in the way that I certainly look at it, would be moved away from cover.
Group life cover makes sense. It takes about 18 months to negotiate. You've got a 1.2 million membership base. You go to an insurance company and in over 18 months their various actuaries tell you the probability and incidence, and eventually they set a premium—no surprise. That premium was $1.11 a week in the Rest scheme. Comparable products that the worker would need to seek outside of a group life insurance would be $8.12 with one insurer, $7.83 with another, and another insurer has quoted $9.06.
You have a problem here. You have 460,000 young people not looking at insurance, not examining their risk and their profile, who have been covered in a group scheme for $1.11 a week. The alternative, if they're not covered there, is between $7.83 and $9.06. This is not adding up to be good public policy. In fact, it's going to add up to be really bad public policy. When we go through and look at some of the ideological arguments that are being driven here, we're basically trying to increase Australians' superannuation balances. No-one can argue with that. No-one wants dormant accounts, inactive accounts and low-value accounts having excessive premiums taken out. Everybody's in violent agreement about that. It's how you do it that we're not in agreement about.
This is a blunt piece of legislation. It will have unintended consequences in high-risk industries. I've got to say this: suicide has made it into the top 10 causes of death in Australia. I've got to tell you, a lot of those people are young people. In my experience on the TWU fund, we would deal with three suicides a month, and they weren't all old people; there were a lot of young people in that space. You can't get that sort of insurance outside group life.
Anyway, we go through and we say, 'Okay, we all agree on not eroding fund balances.' The impact that this will have on compliance is medium to high. The income will be medium to high. This is from the government's explanatory memorandum for the bill. They'll have a medium to high impact in terms of compliance. That is obviously going to be borne by the funds, ultimately borne by the members. That is also going to erode members' superannuation balances. The ironic thing is that, if the government's right and none of these young people actually need insurance while under 25, they're all going to get to 26 and 27 and, when they get there, they're going to pay higher premiums, so there'll be no net effect over the long haul; there'll be no net gain. You dig in a bit deeper: combined with the amendments contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment Protecting Superannuation Package Act 2019:
The amendments have an estimated annual compliance cost impact of $28.5 million averaged over 10 years.
But the bill is estimated to have a gain to the budget of $605.4 million over the forward estimates. Who's the net winner here?
It's arguable whether this is a good thing to do. APRA's submission says this is not straight up and down; you can't see down the line. APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, says in its submission that this is not quantified explicitly. What is quantified explicitly is that this government will have a net gain of $605.4 million over the forward estimates because insurance premiums and the like are tax deductible to superannuation funds and, if you excise a component of that tax deductibility, net revenue to the government. Now, they claim to be low taxing; they claim to be pro worker. This is not a great example of that work. This is a great example of putting their hand in superannuation accounts and taking money out, and the net gain is not clear. In fact, the net gain may be detrimental to millions of Australian citizens with superannuation.
Environment
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:12): I rise today to talk about how urgent it is for us to take action on our environment to protect our precious places and the animals and plants that are facing extreme extinction. Australians love the great outdoors, from our beaches to our forests, rivers and wide, open plains. We have some of the most unique flora and fauna in the world. In Australia nearly 50 per cent of our birds, 87 per cent of our mammals and 93 per cent of our flowering plants are unique to us. But much of this is under threat. Climate breakdown, land clearing and invasive species are wreaking havoc on our natural environment. We're ranked fourth in the world for plant and animal extinctions, as well as holding the terrible record of being the only developed country listed as a deforestation hotspot. We have 517 animals, 1,373 plants and 85 distinct ecological communities listed as nationally threatened or extinct, and these numbers, sadly, are trending in the wrong direction.
The United Nations tells us that there are a million species globally under threat of extinction. A million! Their recent report warned:
Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history – and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating …
The chair of this UN body, Sir Robert Watson, says, however, with hope that it's not too late:
Through 'transformative change', nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably … By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.
Sir David Attenborough put it a little more succinctly when he recently said, 'We cannot be radical enough in dealing with these issues.'
But, here in Australia, we have a government riddled with climate deniers intent on winding back climate action and blocking any meaningful reforms—reforms that are needed in how we produce and consume energy, how we farm and how we get from place to place. While they continue hiding and playing down our own carbon pollution data—our emissions data, which show our emissions are rising, not falling, as Minister Taylor would have you believe—they're intent on spinning that everything is all okay, when all of the data, the science and the loss of species are telling us otherwise.
The government have allowed broadscale land clearing to continue, destroying habitat. They continue to leave our threatened species floundering, delaying additions to the threatened species list and cutting funding from an already struggling environment department that can't even meet its obligations as it is. This is not the kind of transformative change that we need if we're to create a future that we can recognise.
The problems we face aren't just about losing species; what happens to the planet affects us all. Many Australians care deeply about what type of action we're taking, and we're doing everything we can, making small changes in our homes and in our lives, to try and do things better. Whether it's recycling; using less plastic; installing water tanks, solar panels and batteries in our homes and businesses; planting trees; or doing much more, every day people are taking small actions to try and improve their environment because they know that we have to act and we have to act quickly.
Of course, it's not just individuals; it's businesses and community groups too. They're grappling with how to be responsible citizens in an age of climate breakdown. Just this week, Andrew Mackenzie, the chief executive at BHP, the world's largest mining company, endorsed a carbon price. He knows, though, that even this won't go far enough. That's why he's committing hundreds of millions of dollars to curbing BHP's direct emissions and the emissions generated from the use of their resources, so the company can achieve net zero carbon emissions by mid-century. That's leadership. When talking about how to deal with the climate crisis, he said:
An 'all of the above' solution barely gets us there. All emitters, resource companies, customers, consumers must play their part together with governments to meet the climate challenge.
He is right. If we are to solve the climate emergency, we must take swift and meaningful action. We must work together—government, business and people—because our problems require political solutions.
Here in this place, we must act. The climate and extinction crisis we are currently facing requires political solutions; it can't just be left to people doing things in their homes and in their businesses. We need political solutions to curb the crisis. We know it can be solved. We know that the solutions are there if we have the political will to do so. If we are to halt and reverse the damage we are doing to our natural environment, we must take urgent steps.
Our environment laws need updating. Currently, they don't even account for climate change. We've got these environmental laws and they don't protect the planet from worsening climate change. For all the talk of Adani's approvals, big oil drilling in the bight or widespread land clearing in Queensland and New South Wales, there is no mechanism in Australian law to consider the climate impacts of these projects and developments. That's why we need a climate trigger. Our environment laws have not kept up with our environmental reality. Climate change is at the centre of all the threats to this planet and the environment today. While a price on carbon looks unlikely in the near future, because of the climate deniers on the other side, we need something that will limit the damage to the climate. At the very least, let's not make things worse.
A climate trigger would give us a mechanism to assess major developments, and approve or reject them based on their emissions and whether they make climate change and pollution worse. But reducing our carbon pollution won't be enough to save the species that are already under threat. With our list of threatened species continuing to grow, it's well past time that their recovery plans are fully funded. That's why we must, as a bare minimum, commit to the $200 million a year that environmental scientists are arguing is needed to fund our threatened species recovery plans. We must stem the tide of extinction, and that requires investment in our environment.
We're often criticised at this end of the chamber as being unrealistic. Well, this isn't about being realistic; this is about being pragmatic. This is about facing the crisis that we see in front of us head-on, not pretending that it's simply going to go away. We're not putting our heads in the sand. We continue to do this with hope. As Rebecca Solnit says:
Hope is not a lottery ticket you can sit on the sofa and clutch, feeling lucky. It is an axe you break down doors with in an emergency. Hope should shove you out the door, because it will take everything you have to steer the future away from endless war, from the annihilation of the earth's treasures and the grinding down of the poor and marginal … To hope is to give yourself to the future—and that commitment to the future is what makes the present inhabitable.
As a mother of a 12-year-old daughter, as an aunt, as a sister, as a friend, as a global citizen, I cannot sit by while we allow the future to be eroded by a lack of political action. Across the country, Australians want us to act. They want this place to stand up and take these crises seriously. We can solve the extinction and climate crisis if we're willing to do it, but it's going to take a bit of cooperation, a bit of reality, a bit of pragmatism. As the great naturalist David Attenborough said:
I feel an obligation. The only way you can get up in the morning is to believe that, actually, we can do something about it.
And I suppose, just like David Attenborough, I think we can—and we must.
First Moon Landing: 50th Anniversary
Reid, Mr Thomas (Tom), MBE
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:22): It is a bit of a national sport to bash Canberra, not least of which is about those in this building. We often hear a bit of that going on, but I would make the argument that in fact what goes on in this building is often actually done by a lot of non-Canberrans. This is what gives Canberra its bad name. I like to always highlight good things that happen in Canberra, particularly beyond this building, and their contributions to our nation. As we've been looking at and celebrating 50 years since the moon landing this week, I thought we could celebrate one of those great Canberra contributions to our nation and, indeed, to the world.
When we look at the contribution made here in Canberra to the moon landing, unfortunately history has sought to more or less write out the vital role of the ACT in this momentous event. The 2000 Sam Neill film, The Dish, would have you believe that it was Parkes that brought the pictures of the moon landing to the world. As is often the case with films of historical events, this was a half-truth. So, I rise today to pay tribute to Tom Reid MBE and his team at Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, just down the road.
Tom Reid was born in Glasgow in 1927. Tom joined the Royal Navy at the outbreak of World War II, and went on to study electrical engineering at the University of Glasgow. At that time electrical engineers really were the pioneers of their age, and the University of Glasgow was the place to study it. Tom absolutely cleaned up at university, getting top marks. He then migrated to Australia in 1952 and served for five years in the Royal Australian Navy as an electrical lieutenant. In 1952, Tom married his first wife, Betty, and together they had four children. Sadly, Betty passed away in 1965. In 1967, Tom was appointed director of the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station. It should be noted that Honeysuckle Creek was one of several tracking stations—essentially large satellite dishes—without which NASA would have been blind to the Apollo astronauts.
The Apollo 11 lunar module had been fitted with a television camera so that the occasion of the first man to set foot on the moon could be filmed and transmitted back to earth. But, lunar modules being naturally very small and cramped things, the only way that the camera could be made to fit was for it to be mounted in an equipment locker upside down. Before setting foot on the moon, Buzz and Neil would have to pull a lever, the equipment locker would drop open and the camera would begin recording and transmitting pictures, albeit upside down, back to earth. It would be up to the individual operators at the individual tracking stations to flick a switch on their television monitors in order to turn the picture the right way up.
According to the plan, once the lunar module landed on the moon, Buzz and Neil were to have a short sleep in order to recharge before their first moonwalk. Having travelled over 380,000 kilometres, and being the first humans on the moon, they naturally had some difficulty in falling asleep and so told mission control in Houston that they were going to go out early. NASA's intention was for the Parkes Observatory to broadcast the images coming back from the moon but, given the changed time of the moonwalk, Parkes was not yet in position to broadcast the images. Houston then decided it would be Goldstone that would transmit the pictures. However, the operator at Goldstone had forgotten to flick his switch in order to flip the picture. He panicked and went through a whole lot of troubleshooting which invariably made the problem worse and so, with a few seconds to go before Neil Armstrong was to step out onto the moon's surface, Houston made the call: 'All stations, we're switching video to Honeysuckle.'
So it came to pass that at 12.56 Sydney time on Monday, 21 July 1969 it was Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, that broadcast Neil Armstrong climbing down that ladder onto the moon's surface and saying the immortal words, 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,' to more than 600 million people around the world. Honeysuckle Creek would continue to broadcast pictures from the moon landing for eight minutes until the Parkes Observatory came online and took over the broadcast. But for Tom Reid and his team at Honeysuckle Creek, the world never would have been able to see those immortal pictures.
Tom Reid would go on to be the director of Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, which maintained communications with spacecraft travelling to the outer edges of the solar system and beyond. Tom Reid would marry a local Canberra girl, Margaret McLachlan, in 1966. Margaret McLachlan would be better known to members of this place as the Hon Margaret Reid AO, Liberal senator for the ACT for over 20 years and former President of the Senate. There are many in and around this building who are written up as Canberra power couples, and rightly so, but there can be no doubt that Tom and Margaret Reid were one of the original Canberra power couples. One was the man who brought the pictures of the moon landing to the world, and the other was the first female President of the Senate. I pay tribute to both Tom and Margaret for their enormous contribution and significant achievements.
Tom, sadly, passed away in 2010 but Margaret continues to make an enormous contribution to Canberra and to our nation. I also thank John Heath, John Saxon, Mike Dinn and their whole team, who have done so much over the past couple of years to make sure that Canberra's important role in this historic event is properly remembered. I also pay tribute and thank Andrew Tink AM, author of Honeysuckle Creek: The Story of Tom Reid, a Little Dish and Neil Armstrong's First Step. It's a fantastic book which I would encourage everybody to read and to share to ensure that Canberra's and Australia's role in this momentous event is not forgotten.
At the time of the moon landing there was someone I had met recently who was turning 50, and I was very pleased to celebrate with Gordon Holyland recently for his 100th birthday. I'd like to recognise a very special Canberran. A few weeks ago I attended, with Gordon, family and friends, the Northside Life Church celebration hosted by pastor Sue Miller to celebrate Gordon Holyland's 100th birthday and to pass on messages from His Excellency the Governor-General, from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, from the Prime Minister and on my own behalf to Gordon.
Gordon was born on 30 June 1919. It's difficult for those of us who are a bit younger than Gordon to imagine life back then and how different things were back when the great ocean liners crisscrossed the globe and the Ford Model T represented cutting-edge technology. Gordon served in World War II, serving primarily in New Guinea. Gordon continued to serve in the Army after the war, serving as an instructor here in Canberra at Duntroon and rising to the rank of corporal. When former Prime Minister Ben Chifley died in 1951, it was Gordon who would drive the hearse. Gordon would go on to become a Commonwealth driver and still to this day lives here in Canberra.
Gordon, too, represents an ordinary Canberran who has made an extraordinary contribution to our city and to our nation over the years through his service in the Army and in other roles. I'm sure that all senators here and those beyond will join with me in wishing Gordon a happy 100th birthday, and we also wish him, hopefully, many more happy years with his family.
Homelessness
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:30): There are some things that we should all be able to agree upon in this place, and one of those things is that everyone in our society should be able to have somewhere safe to live. It's not good enough that over 100,000 Australians are homeless, and it's not enough, as Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services Mr Howarth said, to just 'put a positive spin on homelessness figures', whatever he meant by that. We may actually have to do something about the issue.
Despite the government's assertions, Australia is in a housing crisis, and it's something that everyone, except, it seems, this government, can all see. In suburbs and towns across Australia there are people sleeping rough. In suburbs and towns across Australia there are people sleeping on friends' couches, crashing with family members or are in crisis accommodation. Across Australia there are people who are choosing whether to turn their heater on or to skip a meal in order to be able to afford to pay their rent. Whether you're on the Left or the Right of the political spectrum, access to housing should be regarded as an absolutely fundamental right.
In my home state of Tasmania, housing is in crisis across all areas and sectors. It has gotten so bad that many people were camping in tents at the Hobart Showground until that option was removed from them in January. The problem with housing in Tasmania is widespread and multifaceted. Anglicare's Social Action and Research Centre outlines the current housing situation in Tasmania by saying:
Over the past seven years:
public and social housing has not been able to meet demands;
private rental listings have declined significantly, with short-stay accommodation likely to be playing a lead role;
private rental prices have increased; and
house purchase prices have increased.
These conditions have resulted in:
increased competition for private rentals;
increased waiting lists for public housing; and
unrelenting demand for homelessness services.
So it should be clear to those here that the situation is quite dire.
Late last year Hobart was named the least affordable capital city in Australia on the Rental Affordability Index. In the 12 months to March, rental prices in the Greater Hobart area were up 9.4 per cent. That's right: Hobart was less affordable than Sydney and Melbourne—cities with millions of people. Part of the reason is a lack of properties to rent. Anglicare's annual rental affordability snapshot shows a 60 per cent reduction in private rental stock over the past seven years. This has, in part, driven rents up considerably, making large parts of Hobart unaffordable. According to the Rental Affordability Index report, areas including Hobart, Sandy Bay, west, south and north Hobart, Kingston and Margate are now unaffordable to the median household, and areas including New Town and Lenah Valley have shifted from 'acceptable' to 'moderately unaffordable'.
We need leadership from this government, but, unfortunately, it's still lacking. The Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, Mr Howarth, claims that there is no crisis, which just goes to highlight that this government is clearly out of touch on this issue. One hundred and sixteen thousand, four hundred and twenty-seven Australians were counted in the 2016 census as being homeless on census night, up from 95,300 in 2001. Women aged 55 and over was the fastest growing group of homeless Australians between 2011 and 2016, with their numbers increasing by 31 per cent. This figure in the 2016 census included 1,622 in Tasmania, which was a six per cent increase since 2011.
We need to put these numbers into perspective. The number of homeless Tasmanians is the equivalent of the entire population of a town the size of Ranelagh or Pontville. Most of you probably don't know where Ranelagh or Pontville are, but Senator Brown certainly would because she and I visit those towns fairly frequently. But is this a sign of what we want for Australia? Is this what we want the Australian community to look like?
As a volunteer for and a patron of a local charity, Kingborough Helping Hands, which operates the Loui's Van service in Kingston, I've seen the devastating impact of homelessness firsthand because homeless people come to use the services of the van. Not only do we supply them with food but also we have blankets and beanies, and hot drinks and all sorts of things for them, just to try to make their life that little bit warmer in the freezing cold winters that we get in Tassie—the utterly, bitterly cold winter nights that we get.
We've just got to do better. It's not just homelessness that is the problem but also the lack of affordable rental properties and rental stresses and working people being unable to transition from renting to property ownership. These issues are serious, and they're structural in nature. These issues are not solved by the new Minister for Housing, Michael Sukkar, spruiking the property market and telling young people, 'You won't regret it.' Issues with housing affordability don't disappear because the minister wishes them to or says that they don't exist. They require actual policy, because real people are suffering. Business as usual is just not an option.
In March 2019, there were 3,249 Tasmanians waiting for public housing. The average wait time for public housing in Tassie has blown out past 56 weeks. That's over a year to wait, to gain access to secure, affordable housing. And a year is way too long for anyone to have to wait.
Hobart also had the strongest growth in house prices in Australia in the 12 months to June, up 2.9 per cent for the year, which further puts the squeeze on housing affordability. Areas such as Brighton and Sorell and Snug and Huonville, which are sort of at the extreme ends of Hobart away from the centre, are becoming popular commuter suburbs for the first home buyers and families who work in the city. So this is putting more strain on our infrastructure as well, and there are quite often—now, daily—traffic jams for those trying to get into the city from any of these areas. And heaven forbid if there's an accident! The other day we had—and this is Hobart—a 15-kilometre traffic jam going into the city from down where Senator Brown and I live, just because there was an accident on the highway. So none of it has been thought out very well—neither the infrastructure nor the housing issues.
The policies that have constrained wage growth have not helped either, because, as wages have stayed static, penalty rates have been cut and jobs have become less secure. The cost of housing, though, is still going up in Tasmania.
Things are going from bad to worse. Pay and conditions fought for by the labour movement for 100 years are coming under further attack, as workers and their unions are increasingly targeted. There are those who say that things are the same as they've always been. Well, it wasn't always that hard to rent or buy. And you hear that people aren't trying hard enough. That is simply not true.
A recent report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says:
There has been a decline in home ownership for those 50–54 years from 80% in 1996, to 74% in 2016. Rates are also dropping for 30–34 year olds (from 64% in 1971, to 50% in 2016) with some not transitioning to home ownership …
More people are renting, especially young people. Overall, 31% of Australian dwellings were rented in 2016, compared with 27% in 1991 … The proportion of people aged under 35 renting increased from 47% in 2006 to 54% in 2016 …
To sum up for those opposite, this means that the rates of home ownership amongst young people have crashed and that, for some, they just know that the dream of owning their own home is beyond their reach and they'll never be able to reach it.
Is this what Australia really wants? Do we really want to see young families attending auction after auction to watch their dream of owning a home die? Do we want to see single people or young couples attending rental open homes on Saturday morning only to find that 100 people have already gone through the doors and filled in an application before them? For too long the government has thrown its hands in the air, while rentals get more expensive, properties prices get more expensive and waiting lists for public housing grow.
When we were in government, Labor introduced the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The objective of the scheme was to increase and maintain the supply of affordable rental dwellings and reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. Labor's original scheme provided for 55,000 new affordable rental dwellings to be built, but in the 2014-15 budget the Abbott government announced that NRAS would be capped at 38,000 dwellings. That decision has been widely criticised by housing sector stakeholders. This short-sighted decision, along with their failure to bridge the funding gap, has severely curtailed the supply of affordable rental housing. (Time expired)
Debt
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (13:40): I would like to talk about debt—not the sophistry of good debt and bad debt but the brutal reality of what debt actually does. Debt doesn't really matter until suddenly it does matter. Then debt enslaves and erodes freedoms. It cripples economies and enterprise. It destroys relationships and creates disharmony. And I fear it's coming our way. A recent headline in The Australian newspaper details an explosion of debt by the states, which is expected to exceed $184 billion in the next five years. Commonwealth debts exceed $500 million. Investment bank Morgan Stanley estimates that household debt is 189 per cent of income, amongst the highest in the world. Interest rates are at historic lows and yet over a million households in Australia are deemed to be in mortgage stress. Debt is sowing the seeds for a very difficult period for the Australian economy. Little wonder that the Reserve Bank has flagged more interest rates cuts in a bid to stimulate our economy.
The traditional theory behind this is that, if less money is used on debt servicing, more will be spent and the economy will benefit from this extra cash flow. Low rates may encourage greater borrowing for consumption and investment, as capacity to repay is increased. Both of these scenarios depend on consumer and business confidence to be effective, and therein lies the problem. Individuals will borrow to invest or they will continue to spend if they expect their returns to exceed the cost and risk of those expenditures and investments. People will spend more as their debt servicing levels fall if they are confident that their personal financial situation is stable and improving. In the absence of that confidence, lower rates do little to entice people to do anything except repay debt. This, of course, is a long-term virtue, but it does little to stimulate a flagging economy over the short term.
This is the scenario facing Australia today. The economy is slowing, confidence is down and there are few economic levers left for the managers to pull. The miraculous growth over the recent decades has been the product of immigration, escalating house prices propping up spending, and of course the resources boom. It has been aided by growing levels of government and consumer debt, which seemingly have been used to perpetually avoid the day of reckoning.
Human nature lends itself to a cycle of economics. Confidence leads to overexuberance and then a reality check comes along, which lends itself to a more gloomy outlook. Over the decades, governments have sought to avoid the cyclical nature of the economy through programs and stimulus that effectively only paper over the cracks. In effect, they defer the problem until it can't be avoided any more. The global financial crisis of 2008 was one such scenario, which had a devastating impact on the global economy. Australia was largely immune from that impact due to an unprecedented spending and debt package of government. But a lot of the problems that caused that crisis—and I say debt levels were mostly responsible—still exist today. In fact, they're much, much more in many instances. Some forecast that another period of global instability lies ahead.
Australia seems to be at the tail end of the global cycle. Our 28 years of economic growth has been a product of immigration, as I mentioned before, rather than productivity. Individuals and businesses are being squeezed by fees, charges, the cost of living and uncertainty about the future. A reduction in interest rates to even more record lows won't help change that too much.
I don't doubt that many measures that have been utilised overseas, like quantitative easing, may be suggested here, but the consequences of such activities can actually make things worse. The answer to expanding our economy is actually to confront the cost of doing business. We need to not only confront but contract the cost of doing business. We need to confront the growing size of government, and we need to contract the size of government. And we need to diminish its voracious appetite for the taxes of the ever-diminishing group of net taxpayers in this country.
To unleash prosperity for all Australians, we need to remove red tape, green tape, blue tape, black tape, brindle tape—whatever tape has been invented by well-intentioned but misguided programs, or the bureaucrats responsible for administrating them. We need to restore confidence in government; we need to restore people's confidence in their ability to gain and hold a job; we need to restore confidence in business owners, large and small; and we need to give every Australian more confidence in the future if we are to ensure our economic growth will continue. This requires predictable, measurable and accountable policy settings. It's not good enough to say, 'This program or policy didn't work and so we need to expand it a little bit more, throw more money into it, borrow more money in the hope of achieving some miraculous outcome.' To achieve the things we need to do in this country, we need to grow our economy.
If we want to alleviate our debt problems that reside in households and governments and businesses across the country, we need a government that recognises that, in many instances, the less they do, the more our economy will benefit. Every dollar that government takes from taxpayers, every dollar it borrows and mortgages—and, hence, mortgages the future of our future generations and those who will be responsible for funding the repayments—every dollar it takes out of the productive economy is a dollar that diminishes the potential growth of that economy. This has been proven throughout the history of economic management and government. Every dollar it takes from the productive economy reduces the ability of that economy to grow, to expand and to deliver prosperity. If we are to make sure Australia is prepared for the future and the potential financial crisis that will be triggered by debt levels across the globe, we need to make sure that the government gets back to what its business is—defending our nation, providing an environment where individuals feel confident in the future and businesses can deliver the jobs and the profits they need to, providing services and opportunities and inspiring others to achieve everything they possibly can in our country.
I don't mind saying that I've been heartened by the start, in many instances, the government have made in pursuing aspects of this policy agenda. They have sought to cut taxes. I lament that they haven't been cut immediately and I'd like the cuts to be deeper, but it is a step in the right direction. I would also appeal to the government: why not reinstate the red-tape and green-tape repeal days that were once so proudly and virtuously proclaimed by the now Treasurer and deputy leader? Those red-tape repeal days meant that, despite some of them only being administrative tasks, there was a real ability to say: 'We are going to remove regulation. We're going to allow people to take a bit more responsibility and care for themselves. We're going to allow businesses to work for the benefit of both owner and employee.' When businesses are better off, the whole country is better off. More profits are made, more taxes are paid and more investments are made. This country will benefit immeasurably from that. To the government: I will back your policy agenda as far and hard as I can, but I would appeal to you to do a little bit more by actually trying to do a little bit less.
Trade Unions
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (13:49): I'm a big believer in the rule of law and in the notion that we all must be equal before it. Yet we should never forget that when it comes to accountability and integrity there has been, until now, one set of rules for Labor and the union movement, and another set for businesses and the conservative side of politics. Some union leaders have a head-in-the-sand attitude to union corruption and misuse of members' funds. They seem to think they can spot alleged corruption in businesses at 100 paces, but they refuse to acknowledge when it is rife in the union movement.
It was like this under Mr Shorten when he refused to act to expel Mr Setka of the CFMMEU from the Labor Party for his criminal harassment of women and his denigration of the work of Australian of the Year Ms Batty. It was like this under Ms Gillard, who refused to act on Mr Thomson as he faced charges of misappropriation of union funds to attend brothels when he headed the Health Services Union of New South Wales. Sadly, it seems set to continue under our new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, who has declared today that Labor will not be backing the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019.
We know that there are some unions who are doing what they can to represent their members and provide them with useful services like professional registration or insurance, but the more militant and outlying unions, like the CFMMEU, thumb their noses at the law. Over recent years, that very union has been fined more than $16 million for not 20, not 200, but 2,000 contraventions of the laws of this country. And that's perfectly fine with the current head of the ACTU, Ms McManus, who is on the record as saying:
I believe in the rule of law where the law is fair and the law is right, but when it's unjust I don't think there's a problem with breaking it.
With the backing of the ACTU, it's no wonder the CFMMEU has 79 of its representatives before the courts in 37 separate cases brought about by the Australian Building and Construction Commission for 800 separate alleged contraventions of workplace law.
To paraphrase the Attorney-General, Labor changes its leader, but nothing changes with Labor. If the senators opposite won't hold the labour movement to account, we will. The ensuring integrity bill is designed to ensure that all registered organisations act within the law—it shouldn't be crazy, right?—and, when they don't, they are penalised. Very importantly, the bill applies equally to unions and employer organisations, and it reflects the recommendations of the trade unions royal commission. It finally brings unions into line with provisions for misappropriation, fraud, misuse of union funds, and other so-called white-collar crimes that are listed in the Corporations Act. Why should unions, often with their significant managerial structures and their extensive commercial interests and profit margins, be treated differently from the corporations of this country?
Schedule 1 of the act will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to ensure that officials who demonstrate disregard for the law won't be able to hold office in a registered organisation. Again, this is simply applying standards similar to those we already expect from those people who would wish to lead a corporation. If you want to be a company director, you can't break the law. It's not an unreasonable standard. Under the framework of the bill, a person convicted of an offence carrying a penalty of five years imprisonment or more will be automatically ineligible to hold office or be disqualified if they already do so. The court will be given more appropriate powers to disqualify officials of registered organisations that breach their duties, have a history of breaking the law or are regarded unfit to hold their office because of it. Where an organisation or its officials have failed to live up to the standards of the law, acted in individual self-interest or failed to comply with court orders, the registration of an organisation may be cancelled or privileges removed. Again, we would expect no less of any other law-abiding corporation. Of course, registered organisations that contribute positively to the industrial relations framework, as they are meant to do, and abide by the law won't be impacted by this bill. It is simply designed to crack down on those who engage in blatant illegal behaviour.
Why the Labor Party won't support it, I don't understand. That's a matter for them. I would think that the more sensible and law-abiding unions would be simply begging for the opposition to, please, please, disassociate themselves from people like Mr Setka and Mr Thomson. But Labor's failure to endorse this bill, a bill that is solely directed at cleaning up union corruption, illegal behaviour and thuggery, is what can only be described as an endorsement of ongoing illegal behaviour. So we have to ask: is Ms McManus still pulling the strings? Ultimately, it is the Australian taxpayer who bears the brunt, the real cost of Labor's decision here, because union thuggery hampers the delivery of goods and increases the costs of roads, schools and hospitals. Mr Setka is far from being the only Labor thug. He's just one of the most reprehensible examples of union bullying we can refer to. But this rot runs deep.
I want to know how Labor cannot support this bill. It is in their reputational interest to distance themselves as much as they can from people like Mr Setka and the CFMMEU. But the fact is that they're not serious about taking on these hardcore nasty elements in the union movement. Well, if they're not, we are. We will always put Australian people and progress first. So I commend the ensuring integrity bill.
Uluru
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:56): I rise in the short few minutes that I have left to address issues raised by the imminent closure of the Uluru climb. The current debate and some of the commentary regarding the climb closure illustrate why First Nations people are striving to have a voice to determine their own affairs—and it is a lesson in why we must not only have a voice but certainly a voice that must be listened to and respected.
In October 2017, the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park's board of management, made up of a majority of Aboriginal traditional owners, unanimously decided to close the Uluru climb. It wasn't a decision taken on a whim. It was a decision and discussion about the aspirations of the traditional owners—one that has been there for many, many years—to have visitors appreciate the significance and majesty of this sacred place, Uluru. Uluru traditional owner and board chairman, Sammy Wilson, said when the closure was announced in 2017:
We've talked about it for so long and now we're able to close the climb … It's about protection through combining two systems, the government—
the Western way—
and Anangu.
This decision is for both Anangu and non-Anangu together to feel proud about; to realise, of course it's the right thing to close it.
The land has law and culture. We welcome tourists here. Closing the climb is not something to feel upset about but a cause for celebration. Let's come together, let's close it together.
… We welcome tourists here. We are not stopping tourism, just this activity.
Wise words from Sammy Wilson.
The board of management has been working with the tourism industry over many, many years to make sure there is no detrimental effect on the industry. And, in fact, when I was the previous tourism minister in the Northern Territory government, in 2009, 2010 and 2011, we were working on this plan to close the climb in consultation and in coordination with tourism and tourism bodies throughout Central Australia, across Australia, and, indeed, around the world. The board of management has continued to work with tourism industries over many years to make sure there is no detrimental effect on the industry. And, while the climb may close, the Anangu know there will be more opportunities for partnerships with traditional owners based on true cultural experiences for visitors.
So I say to senators and to members in the House: take the opportunity—the real, genuine opportunity—to engage with the Anangu. They want to be able to explain this to you, to tell you about their Jukurrpa, the songlines and the maps that make this enormously beautiful place in the middle of our country so sacred and so special for all people.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator McCarthy. We'll move to questions without notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Birmingham. I refer to his letter today, responding to questions from me that he took on notice in question time yesterday. In his letter he states, 'Minister Taylor has always declared his interests as required under both the House register of interests and the ministerial code of conduct.' Does the minister stand by his statement as set out in that letter?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): To the best of my knowledge, Minister Taylor has always declared his interests.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): Why does Minister Taylor's statement of registrable interests under the House's register of interests fail to declare his interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): Senator Wong is making an assertion there. It's an assertion that is one that, of course, I can take on notice in terms of having Minister Taylor respond to it. As to whether the assertion has any validity or not, I would of course not take Senator Wong's word for that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, final supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:01): I have in front of me ASIC extracts that demonstrate that Minister Taylor is a director of Gufee Pty Ltd, a joint holder of a one-third interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd. Given that these extracts clearly show Minister Taylor's interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd, will Senator Birmingham now correct the record and apologise for misleading the Senate?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): I have already indicated that I don't take the senator's assertions at face value. I have already taken on notice—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, Senator Wong is seeking a point of order.
Senator Wong: I seek leave to table the ASIC document confirming that Minister Taylor has an interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd.
Senator Cormann: Mr President, on a point of order: Senator Wong is a long-serving senior senator. Senator Wong knows about the conventions in this place when it comes to seeking leave to table documents. If the appropriate courtesies are displayed then the government will give leave, but not in the absence of complying with the normal courtesies.
The PRESIDENT: It is not a point of order to seek leave. I grant the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate some liberality in application. It is not a point of order, though. I call Senator Birmingham to continue.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: As I indicated, I've already taken on notice at the first supplementary the assertions that Senator Wong is making. If there is anything to be brought back to the chamber in relation to those assertions I will bring it back, just as I responded promptly to the questions I took on notice yesterday on behalf of Minister Taylor.
Trade
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (14:03): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the government is on the side of Australian workers, including by helping Australians export to the world?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): I thank Senator Antic for his question and congratulate him on his first question to the chamber. I welcome him to the Senate and note that, perhaps, unlike some others, Senator Antic is happy to come into this question time and ask questions about policies and about issues that matter to Australians in terms of job creation for Australians, in terms of business growth for Australians and in terms of the types of opportunities that are important to keeping our economy strong and to keeping Australians safe and secure economically. Indeed, the trade policies of this government have been central to providing those types of enhanced opportunities to Australians right around the country, especially in our home state of South Australia. It is wonderful, as always, to have a new Liberal senator here from the state of South Australia.
Our trade policies have seen successive agreements sealed and delivered. They stand in stark contrast to the record of those opposite, who were unable to commence and conclude trade agreements when they were in office. Our government has been able to get on with it: agreements with China, with Japan, with Korea and with the 10 economies of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Indeed, there was our pursuit of the PACER Plus Agreement and our agreements with Indonesia, with Peru and with Hong Kong. All of these agreements have enhanced the opportunity for Australia's businesses to be able to export more, to be able to grow and, ultimately, to be able to contribute to the record levels of jobs growth that we've seen in Australia.
It is no coincidence that the trade growth and the expanded market access that the Liberal-National government has delivered for Australia's farmers and Australia's businesses has helped to fuel an increase in the number of businesses who export, an increase in the volume of exports, an increase in the value of exports from Australia and, ultimately, more job opportunities for Australians. It's those job opportunities that are central, and that's why we are going to continue to work to expand those opportunities for Australia's exporters.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Antic, a supplementary question.
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (14:05): Will the minister inform the Senate about any recent achievements, especially in wine, which is very important to my home state of South Australia?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:05): A critical industry in our great state of South Australia is the wine industry. South Australian wines, I'm sure, are enjoyed by nearly every member of this chamber—indeed, I would hope, by every member. I know Senator Farrell has a strong and abiding interest in the South Australian wine industry—one that we share.
Australia's exports of wine to key trading nations such as China, Korea and Japan continue to grow. Export data from Wine Australia shows that Australian wine exports to China reached a record high of $1.2 billion during the 2018-19 financial year, increasing by some seven per cent in value. Australia now exports more wine by value to China than any other nation around the world. This is a proud accomplishment for Australia's great winemaking industry. They've been able to do that in part because of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has seen Australian wine exports to China grow by more than 180 per cent since coming into force, creating massive opportunities for businesses.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator Antic, a final supplementary question.
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (14:06): Minister, how do Australia's free trade agreements create more opportunities for Australian businesses and exporters?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): They create the opportunity for Australia's businesses and exporters to land their goods, their services and their products in markets at a more competitive rate than their competitors. That is the key thing here: to be able to get into the market with the least amount of cost impost or barriers for those exporters. That's why we continue to pursue new market opportunities. That's what we'll be doing in the negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. It's what we'll be doing in our negotiations with the European Union.
I do warmly welcome the statement of the incoming President of the European Commission, who, in her policy agenda, has stated very clearly the priority that the EC places on quickly finalising an agreement with Australia. We stand ready, willing and able to negotiate quickly and to finalise an ambitious and comprehensive agreement with the European Union, as we do with the UK, should circumstances allow, and our regional trading partners—all of it to keep creating more job opportunities for Australians.
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:07): by leave—I table two ASIC documents that show Minister Taylor's relationship to Gufee Pty Ltd and the ownership of Jam Land Pty Ltd, a third ownership being in the hands of Gufee Pty Ltd, Mr Taylor's company.
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
Senator O'NEILL ( New South Wales ) ( 14:08 ): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In question time yesterday, Minister Taylor told the House of Representatives:
I have no association and have remained at arm's length at all times from the company, Jam Land.
Does the Prime Minister accept Minister Taylor's assertion?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:08): Yes, he does.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:08): Mr Taylor is a director of Gufee Pty Ltd, a joint holder of a one-third interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd, a company under investigation by the Department of the Environment and Energy for allegedly poisoning hectares of critically endangered grasslands. How is this consistent with Minister Taylor's assertion:
I have no association and have remained at arm's length at all times from the company, Jam Land.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): The minister addressed these matters in detail yesterday. No doubt the opposition has the opportunity to ask the minister questions on these matters directly in the House of Representatives today. Also, both Minister Birmingham and myself have made relevant statements to the Senate. I can again confirm that the Prime Minister has confidence in Minister Taylor.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:09): In question time yesterday, Minister Taylor told the House of Representatives: 'I have always disclosed my interests and I've been very clear about those interests.' If Minister Taylor had disclosed his interests, how could it be possible that his own secretary was not aware?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): The honourable senator is indeed right: Minister Taylor has made very clear that he has always declared his interests. Obviously, the interests have to be declared in the appropriate way, consistent with the rules in relevant chambers, and I'm confident that is what has happened.
China: Human Rights
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:10): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Last week Four Corners showed the heartbreaking stories of families torn apart by China's mass incarceration of Uygurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. More than one million people have been put in massive internment camps, including those who call Australia home and those with relatives in Australia. Minister, I welcome your intervention to request that Sadam Abudusalamu's wife and baby son be allowed to travel to Australia. As far as the government is aware, how many Australian citizens are currently in Xinjiang, and what is your government doing to secure the release of other Australians and their families, like fast-tracking visa processes?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:11): I thank Senator Di Natale for his question. In relation to the numbers of Australian citizens or permanent residents of Australia who may be in Xinjiang, we are aware of a number of cases where people have travelled to the region. Some of those have Australian connections, such as spouse visas or associations like that. If Australian family members have requested us to, we have made inquiries with Chinese authorities regarding the whereabouts of those individuals. I won't go into further specifics, because there are of course privacy obligations attached to these matters.
It is also important to note that, where we're talking about noncitizens—those who have Australian connections or are permanent residents but are not citizens—there are limits as to what Australia is able to do in terms of the level of consular assistance that we are able to provide to those individuals.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:12): I just wanted a point of order. I might have stood up just before the minister sat down.
The PRESIDENT: The minister has concluded her answer. So there's an opportunity for a supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE: Perhaps the minister could clarify the question of just how many citizens there are? I think you mentioned 'several'. If you've got a number, I'd appreciate that. The Chinese government are committing cultural genocide against the Uygur people. We are seeing unjust incarceration, forced political indoctrination, restrictions on movement, intrusive surveillance and religious oppression. Following our joint statement at the United Nations Human Rights Council, what are the next steps, and how is Australia working with countries in the region to generate action through the United Nations?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:13): I thank Senator Di Natale for his questions. I don't have a confirmed number of individuals, and it does move around because different cases are notified to us at different times, so I would not like to venture an inaccurate number in terms of that. Australia has taken this situation and raised this situation in the most serious of ways. The senator has referred to our statement in the Human Rights Council, of which we are a member. We continue to engage with Chinese authorities, particularly in relation to consular matters—and any support that we also seek for those who are not Australian citizens but are associated with China. In terms of next steps, we seek the support of the government in China—and we have continued to do so—for an opportunity to visit the region and to enable others to visit the region—which they have indicated in the past there is some preparedness to do.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:14): Thank you, Minister. I would ask that you take the question of the number of Australian citizens currently in Xinjiang on notice. Minister, given the devastating scale of repression, when will the Australian government impose targeted sanctions, like visa bans and asset freezes, against those linked to abuses in Xinjiang? What will it take for the government to take action in the face of these horrific and gross violations?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:14): I will take on notice Senator Di Natale's question about numbers and see what information I am able to provide. I've already indicated the steps that the government is taking, the issues that the government has raised. I don't agree with the approach that the Australian Greens suggest in this regard. I think it is very important for the government to work in the way that we are, and we will continue to do so.
Energy
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:15): My question is to Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Minister, as you would no doubt know, Australia's resources and energy export earnings are on track to reach a record $285 billion this financial year. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal-National government is on the side of Australian workers, including by ensuring that Australia's energy export industry remains strong into the future, particularly in my home state of Victoria?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:15): I thank Senator Paterson for his question and recognise that his home state of Victoria has made a proud contribution to our nation's resources history. Indeed, in some respects, it is the home of our resources industry, going back to the days of the gold rushes and, in more recent times, the use of its extensive brown-coal resources and oil and gas resources. It has played an enormous role in developing our nation.
We're also seeking to make sure that Victoria in particular continues to contribute to the future strength of our resources sector. That's why it was so great last week to join my good friend and colleague Senator Birmingham and Minister Tim Pallas from the Victorian government to turn the first sod on the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project in Victoria, an exciting project for our country. It is a $500 million project which builds on the best of what we have done in the past to develop our resources sector to create future opportunities. It is involving the best science and technology that we have in this country. The CSIRO has been involved. Our Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, has been involved. We have a proud history of being at the cutting edge of developing resources and energy for the world, and we have a new opportunity here in hydrogen. It builds on our record of working with other countries to supply their energy and resource needs.
This $500 million project is jointly funded by the Australian and Victorian governments and by Kawasaki Heavy Industries from Japan. The Victorian and Australian governments are both contributing $50 million to the innovative project, and the Kawasaki Heavy Industries company is contributing the balance. We are working with our partners to supply the region and to develop stronger relationships to the north and are using our natural resources to create jobs, to create opportunities for Australians that will allow us to build a prosperous nation in this country. We in this Liberal-National government will continue to do that. The hydrogen industry potentially creates a new opportunity for those brown-coal resources in the Latrobe Valley and for jobs in Victoria.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:17): What else is the government doing to support the development of a hydrogen export industry and to create more jobs in regional Australia?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:18): While this project is very exciting and is a world-first project—the first time creating a liquefied transport of hydrogen to the world—it is not all the government is doing. The Australian government recently contributed another almost $50 million in funds for 16 different hydrogen projects that have been funded by ARENA. Another $26 million has been provided to the Future Fuels CRC to undertake research and development on how to adapt existing infrastructure to hydrogen.
Dr Alan Finkel, our Chief Scientist, has been tasked not only with developing a national hydrogen strategy for the Australian government but also with contributing to the Council of Australian Governments when it works with resource energy ministers across Australia to jointly develop our hydrogen resources and grow this industry for our country. It is a very exciting opportunity that will take decades of work to deliver on the potential promise of hydrogen. We have committed to that and we will continue to build with other like-minded countries in the world to develop this industry for Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:19): What are the risks to Australia's strong resources and energy export sector?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:19): To develop these types of industries, we need strong political support. As I mentioned, it was good to join the Victorian minister Tim Pallas in Victoria, and I recognise their support for the project. There are those that oppose this project, though, and say we shouldn't use our brown coal resources—they're terrible and evil and all these sorts of things. This project will generate around 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide. I was advised last week that that would be about 15 to 20 trips from Melbourne to London on a business class flight. So this particular project is one climate change conference, perhaps much less than that.
It's a very important innovation—that we do this and support these projects. I also call on the Victorian government to support the development of their gas resources, not just their hydrogen resources. Hydrogen has enormous potential for decades to come, but we need Victorian gas to develop sooner rather than later to make sure we protect the thousands of manufacturing jobs that exist in Victoria today and, hopefully, will exist in the future—providing we have common sense from the Victorian government soon.
Defence Facilities
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Defence. Is it not the case that the Woomera Prohibited Area, the WPA, is a unique national security asset for testing advanced defence capabilities for Australia and our allies? Is it not the case that the review of access arrangements for mining and other activities within the WPA undertaken for Defence by Dr Gordon de Brouwer recommended that 'a key consideration for Defence when it assesses WPA access applications should be whether companies have substantial Australian ownership, control and influence'? What, then, is the government's approach to the expansion of the magnetite mining and transport operations in the WPA being planned by Chinese owned company CU-River Mining, and its Chinese owned partner, Jiujiang Mining Australia?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:21): Thank you very much, Senator Patrick, for your question, and thanks very much for your interest in Australia's most important weapons testing range, which is also a very significant national security asset for this nation.
You raise two main issues. I'll go to the first one, in terms of the area itself. The area provides Defence with a unique capability for the testing and evaluation of capabilities because of its size, its remoteness, its low population density and its quiet electromagnetic environment. Defence is the primary user of the area. However, in 2014 a coexistence framework was introduced. Under this framework, any non-Defence user wishing to access the WPA must hold the relevant permit or permission to do so under Defence's legislative framework. This includes Defence's permission for any variation sought under existing permits.
In relation to the part of the question about Dr de Brouwer's review, I can confirm that on 11 May 2018 Dr de Brouwer was appointed to lead a review of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coexistence Framework, which you referred to. This review builds on the establishment in 2014 of the existing coexistence framework that seeks to balance the interests of all users in the WPA. The review did reaffirm the need to restrict access—and access only—in relation to foreign investment proposals. On 29 March this year the government announced that it supports the findings and recommendations of Dr de Brouwer's review.
These findings do reflect the enduring and critical importance of the Woomera Prohibited Area, as I said, to national security, while also recognising the considerable value the area holds for Aboriginal cultural heritage, mineral resources, pastoral operations, environmental research and other scientific activities. So, yes, we did support all the recommendations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a supplementary question.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:23): Sorry, Minister, you didn't really go to the intersection of CU-River Mining's operations in the Woomera Prohibited Area. But I'm also interested that CU-River Mining have procured an area near Port Augusta for transhipment. That may involve the introduction of Chinese vessels into the Spencer Gulf. Noting that the Cultana Training Area is nearby, are there any risks and what is Defence doing in respect of that risk?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:23): Thank you very much, Senator Patrick, for that question. In relation to the Cultana Training Area, all applications for access are assessed on a case-by-case basis, given the sensitivity of the area. The safety and security of Defence personnel and facilities are regularly reviewed for any potential changes in circumstances. I can confirm that is the case in relation to that question.
In relation to CU-River, all applications for access to the WPA are assessed on a case-by-case basis, given the sensitivity of the area. Defence determines the access conditions based on its legislative framework and the need to preserve the safety and security of Defence activities in the area. Defence considers the security implications of any foreign ownership, control or influence that an applicant may have before granting access. CU-River has an existing mining permit for operations at Cairn Hill within the WPA, which remains in force until August 2024. CU-River does not have Defence's permission to access its exploration tenements or to establish further mines within the WPA. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question?
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:24): Noting that you mentioned foreign interference, one of the directors of JiuJiang Mining Australia is a former cabinet minister and senator, Nick Bolkus. He has recently registered under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, effectively acknowledging that JiuJiang Mining Australia is a foreign government related entity. Noting that, what are your concerns in respect of their operations in the WPA?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:25): Thank you very much for that question. What I would say—as you've indicated what former senator Bolkus has done—is that all companies consider their obligations under the scheme. Whether a person or an entity is required to register will depend, of course, on who the foreign principal is, the nature of the activities undertaken, the purpose for which the activity is undertaken and also, in some cases, whether the person has held a senior public position in Australia. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme commenced on 10 December last year, and its purpose is to provide public and government decision-makers with visibility of the nature, level and extent of foreign influence on Australia's government and political processes.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, on a point of order?
Senator Patrick: I'm trying to get to the concerns that you have in respect of the established foreign influence in this particular case on the WPA.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Patrick, that was the final part of your question. The minister is allowed to address other parts of the question. You've reminded her of that.
Senator REYNOLDS: What I have done is advise Senator Patrick of the process which applies to all applicants. It is the same rules for everybody under the FITS. What I've said stands in relation to CU-River.
Defence Industry
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, given the unprecedented investment in Australia's naval capability, and specifically the continuous shipbuilding program under our Naval Shipbuilding Plan, can you update the Senate on how this benefits Australian workers?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:27): I thank Senator Fawcett for that question. I also congratulate him for his deep and enduring support for and engagement in the delivery of defence capability, in particular our shipbuilding program. I can confirm to the Senate that the Australian government is investing an unprecedented $90 billion through the Naval Shipbuilding Program in new naval capability for this nation. As our region and our oceans become more contested—increasingly so—we need new, capable marine platforms that will deter threats to our interests and also provide for our security. This is why we are investing in the largest regeneration of our Navy since World War II. I'm delivering a plan that will see Australia deliver 12 Attack class submarines, 12 Arafura class offshore patrol vessels, nine Hunter class frigates, 21 Guardian class patrol boats, two mine countermeasures support ships and one hydrographic survey vessel.
This government is building 57 naval vessels in Australia, by Australians, with Australian steel. This major investment will provide capability for the surveillance and protection of our maritime approaches and the ability to operate with our partners seamlessly. The capability will make a real contribution to peace in our region for decades to come. It will also enhance the ADF's capability for regional humanitarian relief and disaster relief, which is crucial to our support and work with our partners in the Indo-Pacific. To deliver this capability we are taking a whole-of-nation, whole-of-industry approach, which is exactly what is required for Australia to succeed in this important national endeavour.
I've also had the opportunity in recent weeks to visit South Australia and see the work already underway to build our air warfare destroyers and the first of the offshore patrol vessels. It is fabulous and wonderful. I'm so proud to see the progress and work that has been achieved by this side of the House.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:29): Could the minister outline what recent steps have been taken to build Australia's sovereign industrial capability to support this naval shipbuilding endeavour?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:29): This government is transforming the relationship between Defence and the defence industry here in Australia through a clear, long-term plan to strengthen Australia's industrial base. Already, the implementation of the $90 billion Naval Shipbuilding Plan is well underway, with the construction of the Arafura class offshore patrol vessels and, I'm very pleased to say, the Guardian class Pacific patrol boats in my own home state of Western Australia.
The Morrison government is making a $1 billion investment to construct the world's most advanced shipyards in both South Australia and Western Australia. This work is well underway in creating approximately 15,000 skilled and professional jobs across these programs, real jobs in Australia—
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
Senator REYNOLDS: unlike what you did not deliver. Through you, Mr President: how many Australian-built ships did those opposite deliver? None. They didn't order a single one. But under our program— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:30): Can the minister update the Senate on other elements of this capability renewal plan?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:30): I'd be delighted to. This government is transforming the relationship between Defence and defence industry. Recently I had the opportunity to visit the BAE Systems Govan shipyard in Glasgow, in the United Kingdom, where I experienced firsthand the build progress on the City class Type 26 frigate for the Royal Navy, the design that will form the basis of our new Hunter class frigate. During this visit, I announced the latest Australian supplier to be awarded work through the Type 26 supply chain, the Adelaide based company Airspeed. This is just one of many examples of the government's support to the Australian defence export sector. I was also pleased and very proud to travel to Cherbourg in France to attend the launch of France's first Barracuda class submarine with President Macron and my counterpart, Minister Parly. Strong engagement with France is critical as we embark on delivering a strategically vital capability supported by a strong industrial base.
Medicare
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. Yesterday, TheAustralian reported that doctors, specialists and surgeons are rorting Medicare at record levels to line their own pockets and rip off hardworking taxpayers. They stated that last month a record of $4.5 million in rebates for bogus health services provided to supposedly sick patients was identified by the Professional Services Review for repayment. After recouping $10 million in 2017-18 and $20 million in 2018-19, the Medicare watchdog expects to recoup a further $30 million this financial year. Minister, given these phenomenal rises in bogus rebates claimed and recouped, are the government's increased and welcomed compliance efforts unveiling a rorting crisis in our long-trusted system of Medicare?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:32): Thank you, Senator Bernardi, for the question. Fortunately, largely our doctors do the right thing. Of course, for those who don't do the right thing and who overcharge, we seek to, as you've quite rightly said in your question, recover excess funds that have been taken.
Last year we introduced to the parliament the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018 to implement measures announced in the 2017 budget and to support the integrity of Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The bill delivered savings of $103 million over four years, which aligns with the sorts of numbers that you're quoting in your question. Those numbers are based on increased and earlier debt collection figures. The measures in the bill support the integrity of Medicare through improvements to the recovery of arrangements for Medicare debts owed to the Commonwealth.
These improvements will allow compulsory offsetting of future MBS, Medicare Benefits Schedule, payments made to providers on behalf of bulk-billing patients; introduce garnishee arrangements for providers who do not bulk-bill; make administrative arrangements more consistent across the three acts; and deal with businesses' billing approaches that impact on claiming by providers.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:34): Minister, the article reported that a sleep specialist billed the same Medicare item number more than 5,000 times in 12 months to claim $1 million in bogus rebates. A surgeon billed more than 17,000 services and a GP more than 15,000 services in one year, both clocking up around half a million dollars in stolen taxpayers' money. Can the minister shed further light on the nature and patterns of these growing Medicare abuses and the states and communities most prone to such crooked activity?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:35): I think the point that I would make is that we have put in place measures to continue to enforce compliance with the Medicare schedule process. If anyone has specific cases that are being raised, we're happy to hear from them, because we have processes in place that we can undertake to make sure that debt recovery is undertaken, and I've mentioned that in my answer to your primary question. We do have capacity to make reference to the AFP and the Medicare fraud squad within the AFP, which can undertake investigations, and there are processes through which we can continue to work, through the AFP, to recover debts as well.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:36): Thank you, Minister. These doctors are clearly rorting the system and effectively stealing from taxpayers. Can you advise me how many Medicare provider numbers have been removed from these practitioners, or how many have been deregistered as medical practitioners, as a result of investigations and this criminal conduct?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:36): I don't have specific details on that information with me—surprisingly!—but I'm happy to take that on notice and we can provide that back to you and to the chamber.
Ministerial Conduct
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:36): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the report of the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the application of the Statement of Ministerial Standardsagainst former ministers Pyne and Bishop. Does Mr Morrison guarantee the accuracy of the report?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:36): As I've indicated to the chamber before, the Prime Minister, on the basis of Dr Parkinson's report, has confirmed that there's no breach in ministerial standards.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a supplementary question.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:37): The report states that:
Mr Pyne advised me that EY is a client of GC Advisory, which is a public affairs, strategic communications advisory company co-owned by Mr Pyne and Mr Adam Howard (Mr Pyne's former Chief of Staff).
The Australian government register of lobbyists lists Adam Howard as the sole owner of GC Advisory and does not list EY as a client. Which is correct—Dr Parkinson's report or the register of lobbyists?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): The Prime Minister of course completely accepts the advice provided by Dr Parkinson.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:38): Given that Dr Parkinson's report now contains at least three errors of fact under question, how can the Prime Minister possibly rely on this report?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:38): I don't accept the premise of the question.
International Development Assistance: Pacific Step-up
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government is delivering on its Pacific step-up?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:38): I thank Senator Smith for his question and his interest in these key issues, because this government recognises the importance of meeting the challenges and the opportunities of our blue Pacific continent. That's why, in consultation and in partnership with our Pacific neighbours, the Australian government is implementing our Pacific step-up. Security, economic growth and closer people-to-people links so that they can prosper are the fundamental principles that underpin the step-up, and I'm pleased to say that we are delivering on our commitments.
The Office of the Pacific has been established in my department to make sure that all arms of government are working toward this goal together. We've signed memoranda of understanding with 10 countries now to join the Pacific Labour Scheme, which will create economic opportunities and build skills for Pacific island workers and support regional and rural economies in Australia.
And this month the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific also opened for business. It will work to address the infrastructure needs of the region. They are considerable indeed—estimated by the Asian Development Bank to be at over US$46 billion in the period from now until 2030.
The Coral Sea Cable System, which will deliver faster, cheaper and more reliable connectivity and communications for Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, is on track to be operational by the end of the year. Indeed, the cables have landed in Honiara in the Solomon Islands and in Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea.
We're building on our people-to-people links through our shared love of sport—and our shared love of competition in sport, I might add—and our Church Partnership Program, which is a very powerful engagement between Australia and our neighbours. Both the Prime Minister and I have demonstrated our respective commitment to the Pacific with our regional visits since the election, and I look forward to discussing Pacific priorities further this week at foreign ministers meetings in Suva.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question.
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:40): Can the minister advise the Senate how Australia is working in partnership with Papua New Guinea to increase their prosperity and security?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:40): This week the Prime Minister very proudly hosted Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, James Marape, as a guest of government. This was the first guest-of-government visit since the election, which speaks volumes for the importance of this relationship—a relationship that we've also announced we will elevate to a comprehensive strategic and economic partnership.
I'm pleased to say that, within that, Australia and Papua New Guinea have agreed to a range of new initiatives that will build both the breadth and the depth of our partnership in health, in defence, with policing and in a number of other areas. We're working in partnership to grow Papua New Guinea's economy, including through the Coral Sea Cable System, as I mentioned in my earlier response; the Papua New Guinea Electrification Partnership; and the Papua New Guinea-Australia Transport Sector Support Program.
We're investing in a range of new projects in Papua New Guinea's energy sector to not only reduce costs but also, really importantly, increase access to power. We're supporting plans to refurbish hydroelectricity plants and to build a new solar power plant and a new gas-fired power plant. We're committed to working side by side with Papua New Guinea to advance the common interest of our Pacific family.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:41): Can the minister advise how the government is working with like-minded nations across the region to build regional prosperity, security and stability?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:42): It's fair to say that engaging with our partners in the region is a core part of the Pacific step-up. We're not alone in our commitment to a stable, prosperous and secure region, and our partners, including New Zealand, the United States, France, Japan and multilateral agencies, are strongly committed to the development of the region.
We're collaborating with the United States and Japan under our trilateral infrastructure partnership. The Papua New Guinea Electrification Partnership that I referred to earlier is a really good example of this effective partnership approach, through which we are working with Papua New Guinea themselves, Japan, New Zealand and the United States to support the Papua New Guinea government to achieve its goal of providing electricity to 70 per cent of its population, from the current level of 13 per cent, by the end of 2030.
Projects are underway to achieve that aim, and it is truly transformative for Papua New Guinea. We are also engaging closely with the private sector and with civil society to ensure that we maximise the potential of our Pacific step-up to strengthen the region.
Pensions and Benefits
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:43): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The government is undertaking a retirement incomes review. Will the Prime Minister rule out any cuts to the pension?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:43): The answer is: yes. But, of course, the question is: will the Labor Party rule out their $30 billion in higher taxes on Australian's retirement savings?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: I've already answered the question. But, of course, this is a contest—this is a battle of ideas. We stand for lower taxes. We stand, of course, for sustainable funding of all of the essential services Australians rely on, which also includes our appropriately well-targeted but generous welfare safety net. We are putting that on a sustainable fiscal foundation and trajectory for the future through our plan to build a stronger economy.
But what is the Labor Party doing? The Labor Party went to the last election promising $387 billion in higher taxes. There was the retiree tax, the $30 billion in higher taxes on super and the higher taxes on housing, investment and income—you name it!
Under this government, the Australian people can be confident that the pension is safe. Under the Labor Party, it wouldn't be, because under the Labor Party the economy would be weaker, the budget would be weaker and, of course, funding for the essential services would be on a weaker trajectory for the future, which is why, no doubt, the Australian people chose to re-elect us to form government at the last election.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Walsh, a supplementary question.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:45): Will the Prime Minister rule out increasing the pension age beyond 67?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:45): We have absolutely no intention of changing the pension age, and I'm quite happy to rule it out.
But do you know who increased the pension age to 67, Mr President? I'm just trying to remember! Who was that? Who was that? That was the godfather of class warriors, the former member for Lilley. What was his name again? I'm just trying to remember! I think it was Wayne Swan.
Senator Watt: Stop misleading the house!
Senator CORMANN: Wayne Swan was such an amazing Treasurer and such an amazing Labor member for the great state of Queensland that Labor's primary vote in Senator Watt's home state of Queensland is down to 22.6 per cent—22.6 per cent! That is because the Australian people understand that under Labor and their higher taxes, class warfare and antibusiness agenda the country would be weaker and they would have fewer opportunities to get ahead. We will continue to build a stronger economy and better opportunities for people to get ahead.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:46): In an article entitled, 'Super Shake-up: Liberal MP Craig Kelly wants family home included in pension asset test', The New Daily has reported that Mr Kelly has spoken out in defiance of the Prime Minister's call to toe the party line. Will the Prime Minister exclude any consideration of the change Mr Kelly proposed to the pension assets test—
Senator Hume: As long as The New Daily says it, it must be true!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: This is her first question. I would ask that the usual courtesies, in addition to the standing orders, be observed. I would request that the senator be allowed to recommence her second supplementary.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Can I just rule on the point of order? I ask all senators—there have been a number of incidents about questions and first speeches—just to remember the usual courtesies when a senator is on their feet for the first time in this chamber for either their first question or a first speech. I think that courtesy is important, without pointing fingers in any direction.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): It is the honourable senator's first question—
The PRESIDENT: Sorry, Senator Walsh hadn't finished. I'll let Senator Walsh recommence if she hasn't finished, because I've lost track.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is an element of glasshouses and stone throwing about interjections around this chamber, and it has happened on a number of occasions this week. Senator Walsh, please recommence.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:47): Thank you, Mr President, I will start the question again. In an article entitled, 'Super Shake-up: Liberal MP Craig Kelly wants family home included in pension asset test', The New Daily has reported that Mr Kelly has spoken out in defiance of the Prime Minister's call to toe the party line. Will the Prime Minister exclude any consideration of the change Mr Kelly proposed to the pension assets test from his government's retirement incomes review?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:48): The honourable senator is asking her first question. If it were not her first question, she would have heard me say before, 'Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper.' And, even more importantly, 'Don't believe everything you read in The New Daily'! That's what I would say.
Let me just say that Mr Kelly has hotly contested the report. He disputes the report. But, for the avoidance of any doubt, let me also refer you to one of those great tweets from our Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, where he has made very clear that Labor's claim that the pension assets test will be changed to include the value of the family home is a lie. It's not our policy and never will be—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: The point of order is: the actual question is whether the Prime Minister will explicitly exclude consideration of this policy from the review they have announced.
The PRESIDENT: With respect, Senator Wong, I think that Senator Cormann quoting the Treasurer, who has portfolio responsibility about that matter, is being directly relevant to the question.
Senator CORMANN: Let me be very clear: the question is based on a completely false premise, which has been rejected, and I've been very explicit: there will be absolutely no change to include the value of the family home in the pension asset test. It's not our policy and never will be. The Treasurer has made that extremely clear on behalf of the government—and you knew it.
Agriculture Industry
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Minister McKenzie. Minister, can you please outline to the Senate how the Liberals and Nationals in government are on the side of farmers in supporting our rural and regional communities to grow their profitability?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:49): Thank you for your question, Senator Davey. I know you, as a proud New South Wales irrigator who grows rice and also the occasional mung bean crop on your farm, are very interested about our government's plans to grow the profitability and productivity of our primary producers.
Regional Australia has long been the engine room for our economy, with more than 31 per cent of our annual GDP coming from regional Australia in 2016-17. In fact, since we came to government, Australia's total farm production has gone up 25 per cent. This is because we recognise that our farmers can grow the best produce in the world and feed the world. Seventy-five per cent of the food and fibre produced in our regional areas is actually exported, and Australian farmers feed 40 million people across the world. In fact, the value of ag exports was estimated at $48.981 million in 2017-18, up almost 29 per cent since we came to office. Senator Birmingham touched on some of the reasons for that increase in exports for agriculture and on the subsequent increase in local jobs around regional Australia. It is because of the free trade agreements our government has signed. We've also invested $51.3 million to continue to grow our agricultural exports and seize market opportunities in global food chains to support market access requests.
Maintaining our biosecurity though, as a nation with a pest- and disease-free status, is the central value proposition to underpin that export growth. It is something that our government has invested significantly in. We also continue to partner with the taxpayer and levy growers to have a world-class research and development facility to increase on-farm innovation and profitability. Our government has prioritised farmers— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, a supplementary question.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:52): Thank you, Minister. How important is it to ensure that the government continues to support our farmers who are experiencing devastating drought?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:52): It's incredibly important, because it will rain again. And when the rains do come, we want our farmers in drought-affected areas, such as your home state of New South Wales, to be able to get back on their feet, restock quickly, replant quickly and continue to grow that produce and those exports to the world. That's why it's fantastic that, in the Senate today, parliament passed the Future Drought Fund as part of our more than $7 billion drought response for rural and regional communities. It's delivering ongoing, immediate and future responses to assist with overcoming the impact of droughts.
But for all the posturing from elected leaders about the need to support drought affected farmers, only the Liberal-National government steps up when it counts. Prior to the last election, the Greens announced an agriculture policy with $100 million worth of support for drought affected communities each year. It said, 'We need a plan for agriculture that looks beyond the next election cycle.' Well, they had the chance to vote for it today, and they rejected that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator, Davey, a final supplementary question.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:53): Minister, what risks are being faced by our agricultural sector, and how can the government help to minimise these risks?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:53): The Greens will actually have an opportunity to stand up for Australian farmers when the changes to the Criminal Code around agricultural protections and farm activists' illegal activities come to the Senate. I look forward to them supporting us in that.
The front page of The Weekly Times today goes to a Victorian farmer whose family was harassed multiple times over several weeks, to the point of having to actually take the decision to quit farming. He said, 'They had hoodies on and we couldn't see their faces.' He said that 70 activists broke into their farm and that this had an ongoing effect on the mental health, in particular, of his family. The impact was that more than 300 chickens—the stock—actually suffocated as a result of those animal activists' actions. Enough is enough. For us to actually grow this industry, increase regional jobs in our communities, we need to support our farmers and stop these illegal acts, instead of encouraging them as Senator Di Natale did on Insiders this week. (Time expired)
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:54): My question is again to Senator Birmingham. I refer to Minister Taylor's statement yesterday that he has 'no association with Jam Land Pty Ltd'. Does the minister stand by that statement?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): Firstly, it was not my statement; it's not my statement to stand by. Secondly, I'll check the record in terms of whether or not that is a direct quote. What I would say is that Minister Taylor's indirect interest in Jam Land has been widely reported. It is also well-known that the minister's shareholding in Gufee Pty Ltd has been recorded on the minister's statement of interests. The fact that Gufee holds shares in Jam Land Pty Ltd is a matter that is on public records, such as those that Senator Wong tabled in the Senate. The declarations required by the House or the Senate are for declarations of direct interests, not indirect interests, and Minister Taylor has complied with those requirements.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:55): In question time today, Minister Porter contradicted the assertion the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction made in the House—that he had no association with Jam Land Pty Ltd—saying, 'There has never been any dispute that the minister has a relationship with the company.' Does the minister stand by that statement?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): I draw the senator's attention to the declared interests that Minister Taylor made to the House in relation to Gufee Pty Ltd, which in turn holds shares in Jam Land Pty Ltd. The declaration was made in accordance with the rules of the House, according to the advice I've been provided.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:56): Minister Taylor said a short time ago in the House that his interest in Jam Land was declared in accordance with the rules. Given that the ministerial declaration of interests and the register of interests in the House make no mention of Jam Land Pty Ltd, could the minister please refer us to where the minister actually declared that interest?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:57): As I just explained to the Senate, the rules require that direct interests be declared. Minister Taylor, I understand, has declared his interests in Gufee Pty Ltd in accordance with the rules. Gufee Pty Ltd has shares in Jam Land Pty Ltd. Declarations were made in accordance with the rules that direct interests be declared. That is the case. Indeed, I'm sure there would be members and senators throughout the parliament who may have shareholdings in listed companies or others that have indirect interests in other companies. The point is: the rules require declaration where you have a direct interest. Minister Taylor made that declaration.
Queensland: Employment
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (14:57): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Can the minister update the Senate on the recent jobs fairs held in North Queensland and how these jobs fairs are helping Australians get into jobs?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:58): I thank Senator Stoker for that question, and I recognise that Senator Stoker was there and opened the Cairns Jobs Fair last month. While I couldn't make it, I understand it was a terrific success with around 33 exhibitors, over 700 jobs on offer and almost, I think, 1,300 people through the doors of the jobs fair in Cairns. It's one of three jobs fairs that the government has put on in the last few months, including the ones in Townsville and Wide Bay. It's all part of making sure we connect North Queenslanders and all Australians with the job opportunities that we are growing in North Queensland and right through our country.
In North Queensland, we have, over the past year and a bit, made significant announcements about investments through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Just the other week, we announced an over $600 million loan to Genex to help build a massive power station in North Queensland and create 510 jobs. We've also made an investment with James Cook University in a technology innovation centre. There will be 270 jobs there. And we've made an investment in the Townsville Airport to upgrade the terminal, creating another 267 jobs there.
In addition to those investments through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the Northern Australia Roads Program is in the process of upgrading significant road infrastructure in North Queensland, including the Hann Highway, creating the first inland sealed route from Cairns to Melbourne and cutting eight hours off the journey. Right across northern Australia, those roads programs are supporting more than 2,000 jobs being created.
Our government is focused on jobs. It is our No. 1 focus when it comes to the economy because we know that having a job allows you to provide for your children, allows you to pay for your home and allows you to think about other things you will do to support your family and create a better environment for your children. It is a prerequisite to create a better Australia and better communities right across Australia. That's why we fight for jobs and create jobs, and we're doing all we can to keep job growth strong.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stoker, a supplementary question.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (15:00): Minister, why is it so important to focus on bringing jobs to North Queensland?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:00): In particular, I recognise, and the government recognises, that it has been a difficult few years in North Queensland on the jobs front. A few years ago there was a significant mining downturn in other parts of North Queensland, like Cairns. It's been a tough time for the tourism industry, when there was a high Australian dollar.
But there has been good recent news. We have been working hard to bring job-creating projects like the ones I mentioned in the first answer, and there has been significant improvement recently. Unemployment in Cairns is down to 4.7 per cent, a 1.7 percentage point reduction over the past year. In the Townsville region, an area that's had high unemployment recently, the rate has fallen to a still too high 7.1 per cent, which is a 2.1 percentage point reduction in the past year. In Wide Bay it's 7½ per cent, a two percentage point reduction. We are focused on making sure we target these areas of high unemployment to bring more jobs to people in them.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (15:01): Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to creating jobs in North Queensland?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:01): The biggest issue we have in North Queensland—and, indeed, many areas of our country we are seeking to grow and develop—continues to be those that want to run an agenda and don't want to use our resources or develop our country. It is those that are risk averse and have narrow-minded thinking and a view that we shouldn't continue to develop our nation—that we shouldn't build dams, create new mines or help grow our farming sector. Those that have those views are the biggest barrier to job growth in North Queensland and right across regional Australia in particular. Those that haven't supported the Adani Carmichael mine will wear that like a millstone in North Queensland now for years, because they weren't there backing the development of the Galilee Basin when it was crucial and needed. They weren't on the side of North Queensland. They are still not on side. The Labor Party is still not on the side of building dams in North Queensland. They're not partnering with us to get the Big Rocks Weir built and bring thousands of jobs to North Queensland. Until they do, the people of North Queensland know that Labor is not on their side.
Senator Cormann: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:03): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham), and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senator O’Neill today relating to ministerial standards.
Over the last two days, Senators Birmingham and Cormann have been asked on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances surrounding Mr Taylor and Mr Frydenberg and the meetings that they secured with the department about grasslands in the Monaro area. It is striking how unwilling they have been to add even the tiniest amount of detail to this story, and it's a big tell. I haven't been in this parliament and this chamber for as long as some of these people, but I have been around long enough to know that when you get answers like the ones that are being provided here, there is a cover-up going on. People are scrambling. The senators who have been answering questions in this place have been desperate to keep their hands off this. Every answer they've provided has referred to statements made by Minister Taylor or referred to statements made by Minister Frydenberg. They've been completely unwilling to verify with any confidence the set of facts asserted around these circumstances. That is because they are impossible to reconcile based on the available evidence.
It's probably useful to set out some of the facts as they've been reported. It's reported that in October 2016 almost 30 hectares of critically endangered grasslands were cleared in the Monaro area after the land was bought by Jam Land Pty Ltd. In November, a complaint is made by neighbours to the New South Wales and federal environment authorities and, on 7 March 2017, the federal department of the environment meets with representatives of Jam Land to discuss potential contraventions of federal environment laws. That's what has been reported.
We now know from documents obtained under FOI that, on 9 March—just two days after that first meeting when the environment officers go and meet with Jam Land—a meeting is sought by staff in Minister Frydenberg's office with officers from the department to discuss land clearing. The coincidence is striking, isn't it? Within a day, within a day of that first contact between the department and Jam Land, the minister's office is on the case, seeking a meeting from the department. An assistant secretary the following day is emailing his colleagues, talking about this call and quite clearly flagging concerns and anxieties about the position that the department is being placed in by the minister's staff. On 20 March 2017, a meeting in Parliament House with Mr Taylor takes place in relation to this listing of critically endangered species. At the request of Minister Frydenberg, a compliance officer from the department is present at the meeting.
Why does it matter? It's complicated, isn't it? The whole affair stinks of the kind of insider dealings that drive people nuts. The facts as reported give rise to very serious questions in relation to the ministerial standards—the standards that require our ministerial representatives to be honest, that require them to separate the public interest from their private interests. There are serious questions about whether the ministers in question were acting in the public interest or, instead, were acting to protect the interests of one minister and his family and their interest in a particular company, Jam Land.
There has been a discussion today about disclosure, as though that's enough. The facts on the table about disclosure suggest that nowhere near enough has been done. Not all the obligations have in any way been met. Documents tabled today show that Gufee, the company in which Minister Taylor is listed as a shareholder and an officer, has a clear financial interest in Jam Land. That is something you think might have been made public, might have been made known to the departmental officers who were involved in the meeting between Minister Taylor and Minister Frydenberg. But, no, because, in April, during estimates, the secretary of the department couldn't have been clearer. He said, in answer to a question: 'Senator, I can be quite explicit about this. I am not aware that the minister is a shareholder. I do not know that information. Minister Taylor has never raised that issue with me.' Ought not the secretary of the department have been informed that the minister he was meeting with had a direct financial relationship with the company against whom an investigation was taking place? This is not good enough.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:08): It's all very good—the hypocrisy, Senator McAllister, of you to come into this place—given the history of the ALP and the scandals that you've been involved in. It's a bit hypocritical of you to come into this place and make those sorts of assertions. I will tell you why those opposite are doing this: because they have just suffered a really bad defeat at the hands of the Australian public. We won the election. You lost the election. Why did you lose the election? It's good for those opposite; they want to come in here and throw a bit of mud; they want to do this and they want to do that. You do not want to admit that, at the last federal election, you took to the Australian public a series of dud policies and that's why you lost the election, and I'd like to focus on that. You don't want to talk about some of the swings that you suffered, particularly in my home state of New South Wales.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order.
Senator Wong: The point of order is relevance. I know that there seems to be a reluctance to defend Minister Taylor, but that is actually the answer of which we're taking note.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do remind senators that we are taking note of questions from Senator Wong and Senator O'Neill to Senators Birmingham and Cormann. Whilst this is a wide-ranging debate, it is appropriate to address that subject matter.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I would refer, in direct answer to that point of order, to the comments that were made and to the answers that were given by Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham in relation to comments that have been made both here and in relation to what has been said in the House.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: I've been here. I haven't heard what has happened in the House. It is very clear that Minister Taylor has indicated to the parliament that he has complied with his obligations. Those are the comments of Minister Taylor. I accept those comments, and we should accept them as well.
As I was saying, those opposite are very happy now to steer away from their loss at the election. I was focusing on some of the swings that happened in some of the seats in my home state of New South Wales. For the Hunter it was almost 10 per cent; in Chifley, almost seven per cent; in Paterson, almost six per cent; in Shortland, almost 5½ per cent; in McMahon, almost 5½ per cent; and in Blaxland, almost five per cent.
Senator Gallacher: That's not what we're debating!
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: No, you don't want to talk about that! You don't want to talk about your policies in relation to abolishing negative gearing, where you went around Australia and talked about the top end of town when most of the people who negatively gear property in this country are on an average salary of about $85,000. And those people who negatively gear properties do so to get property for their children and for the inheritance of their children, in most cases.
Franking credits: you attacked hardworking retirees, but you didn't do—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I have been listening carefully, and whilst you did come back to the taking note topic, I would just remind you again that this taking note is about questions from Senators Wong and O'Neill to Senators Birmingham and Cormann.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I thought that I addressed that quite adequately—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Fierravanti-Wells, you did momentarily, and then you—
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Well, I'm happy to do so again. As I've said, Minister Taylor has made comments in the other place. Senators Cormann and Birmingham have made comments in this place. I agree with what Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham have said and I would refer the Senate to those comments.
As I was saying in relation to those opposite—in particular to their loss at the last federal election—it is interesting to see seats like Hunter, where Labor had an almost 10 per cent swing. Their assault on the coal industry was really interesting. As I was standing on polling booths for the state election, people came up to me whingeing about the Labor Party—and that is supposed to be their heartland. It is supposed to be a centre where the coal industry is so important, and people voted against them because of their assault on the coal industry.
Of course, there was the issue of religious freedom, which manifested itself also through the Folau sacking. The quiet Australians—that silent majority—rejected their policies, and they have to accept that. They have to accept that they lost the election. So no amount of muckraking or mudslinging is actually going to detract from that fact, that the Australian public rejected their policies. They elected us. They didn't want a return to the fiscal vandalism that we had for six years in this country when they were on the treasury bench. You, Senator Wong, in particular, as the finance minister gave us fiscal vandalism. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Fierravanti-Wells, again, I would ask, if you're taking note again, to please remain broadly around the topic. It is not acceptable just to make one statement and then move completely away from the topic. I think I was quite lenient, but I would ask you to reflect on what taking note is about.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:14): I too rise to take note of the answers given by senators Cormann and Birmingham to the questions of senators Wong and O'Neill. That contribution from Senator Fierravanti-Wells was bemusing, but it reminded me of the tweet from the doyen of the press gallery, Michelle Grattan, who, I think yesterday, said, 'When confronted by a question, answer a completely different one.' That is the oldest deployment of political tactics in the book, so well done, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I'm not sure Minister Taylor would take a great deal of comfort from your less-than-robust defence of his invidious position.
I listened to Senator Birmingham, who said, 'To the best of my knowledge'. That's reminds me of a statement by the honourable North Queensland member Senator Katter, who, when asked about his wife's interests, said, 'To the best of my knowledge, I know nothing.' It is the evasive answer. When in trouble, try to move yourself away from the problem. There is a problem here and it's a discrete problem that arises in this chamber and in the other chamber because of the quite appropriate scrutiny of these declarations. They are important democratic declarations. People in the community need to know if there is a conflict or the potential for a conflict. If you have a financial interest in a decision-making portfolio and it affects your own interests, it's got to be declared. It is a simple principle right throughout democratic society for good governance and due diligence. Minister Taylor seems to attract this lack of appropriate declaration. There were allegations around involvement in water pricing and contracts and sales. Now we have a clear trail of evidence wanting to be tabled in the Senate. The government has said, 'No, do it through the appropriate way,' and I'm sure that is exactly what will happen.
I filled out a senator's declaration of interest, and it's quite specific. There is a handbook to tell you how to do it. Senator Birmingham said that only direct interests need to be mentioned. That's not what the instructions to members of parliament say. It is any beneficial interest whether held by yourself, your partner, your brother or through an investment in another trust. The public need to know that the ministerial standards are being upheld and that the appropriate standards for members of parliament, either in the House of Representatives or the Senate, are being upheld.
The period is on now. The parliament has restarted. In the Senate we have until 30 June to comply with those published registrable statements of interest. This minister has a hang-up from previous parliaments. It will be really instructive to see whether the new declaration actually improves his record keeping and makes it a bit easier for the manager of government business and for the leader of the Senate to actually defend him, because I didn't see any resounding defence of Minister Taylor: 'I think he's done the right thing. To the best of my knowledge, he's done the right thing.' Senator Fierravanti-Wells came in and spoke about something completely different, so she obviously has no confidence that he has done the right thing because she never went within a skerrick of addressing the matter before the chamber.
It is the most vitally important thing that should be complied with at the start of each parliament and be maintained right throughout the parliament. It should act in conjunction with the ministerial standards. If we go to the ministerial standards of conduct by those opposite, it is contended that former Minister Pyne, former Minister Bishop, former Minister Robb—the list goes on—have not exactly covered themselves in glory in honouring those high ministerial standards. They have left the parliament, gone into great jobs within a really quick time frame, which looks to be dubious in terms of the standards.
Those on the other side don't have a good record here. To have a serving minister have allegations about this is not only untidy, it's completely inappropriate. He should have the professionalism, the honesty and the transparency to properly disclose, in the 110 per cent way that's required by the Australian people, all of his registrable interests so as to avoid the possibility of these allegations of undue and improper interference in either the bureaucracy or the way legislation is enacted in this country.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:19): I think Minister Taylor has been very strong in defending his actions, as were ministers Cormann and Birmingham, in question time today. They have been very, very strong in defending Minister Taylor. Minister Taylor has stated quite clearly that he has not made representations to federal or state ministers or any federal or state government department officials in relation to his family investment company. What this shows is, what do Labor have to ask questions about? They're not going to ask questions about policy. They're not going to ask questions about substantive issues. We are seeing a classic 101 from Labor: run around, throw a bit of dirt and water and hope it turns to mud. It is disappointing to see that, after the people of Australia on 18 May made an informed decision about who they wanted to see sit in the Lodge and to be in executive power in this country, a party who failed to win—I've been there; I've lost more elections than most people in this place—have failed to come to terms with the decision of the quiet Australians.
Instead of understanding that, they are getting this dirt and water and throwing some mud around in relation to Minister Taylor. Minister Taylor's indirect interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd has been widely reported in the media and has been declared in accordance with the rules. It's simple. But this isn't stopping our friends in the Labor Party. This isn't stopping them, because of this policy vacuum, this vortex that exists on that side of the chamber at the moment. What they want to do is chase after people when there is actually nothing there to look at. Minister Taylor and ministers Cormann and Birmingham have been very clear in relation to the conduct and the compliance with the rules.
It is disappointing, because in this parliament and this question time there should be serious questions put to ministers and the government about policy issues. We welcome those questions. We welcome questions about what the government is doing to help Queenslanders and Australians—what we're doing in terms of cutting taxes and how that is helping Queenslanders and Australians; what we are doing in terms of drought. It is probably the worst drought that Australia has had in recorded history. I know that in my home state of Queensland there are still some children in parts of Queensland who are yet to actually experience precipitation falling on their heads. They are yet to experience the magic that is rain, because their property, their home town, is yet to receive rain. This is part of the brutality that is the Australian climate. But there were no questions about drought, no questions about how that is impacting upon rural and regional Queensland and how it is impacting upon those in the cities.
Instead, sadly, we have questions addressed to ministers impugning the conduct of ministers in relation to how they have made declarations in the register of interests. Minister Taylor has been so clear. It is so clear that the minister has been totally in accordance with the register of interests. Minister Taylor has provided assurance that he has had no association with the compliance action and has never made a representation in relation to it. This was confirmed at Senate estimates by the secretary of his department in April of this year. The secretary of the department has confirmed that the register of interests has been complied with. Yet, sadly, Labor wish to fill up question time with these questions.
Senator Dean Smith: Waste question time.
Senator McGRATH: Waste question time—thank you, Senator Smith. I'm sure the frontbench will probably get annoyed with me, because, instead of serious, hard questions about policies, what we're seeing from Labor is the throwing of mud—the use of dirt and water, mixing it together in the good old union jug and throwing it at those evil Tories on the other side of the chamber. That is sad. It is a sad reflection upon the modern Labor Party, and it is actually an indication of one of the reasons why they failed to connect with the quiet Australians on 18 May.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:24): Well, if Senator McGrath calls that a strong performance from Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham, I'd hate to see a weak one! When you compare the performance of Senator Birmingham and Senator Cormann defending Minister Taylor today, compared to yesterday, that was a vastly different performance from senators Birmingham and Cormann. They obviously know that the minister has been less than truthful in terms of how he has presented himself to the House of Representatives on these important issues.
I think that, at the end of the day, what this comes down to, and what we are starting to see emerge from this government, is arrogance. We know they won the election. We saw the contribution from Senator Fierravanti-Wells, where all she could talk about was the election win. At least Senator McGrath spent a minute longer talking about the minister. But it was a very lame defence of the minister, and we saw the same from Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham.
But this is an arrogant government and this is an arrogant minister, because they think the standards don't apply to them. We see that with former Minister Pyne and with former minister Julie Bishop, as to the way they have behaved, post-election, in terms of basically disregarding the ministerial standards. And the government has been prepared to defend them on that.
Again, this week, we've seen that the government has been prepared to defend Minister Taylor. It certainly was a different attitude today, though, in the Senate, where they were certainly not as strong in their defence of Minister Taylor in this chamber.
But what we know and what has been established is that there are basically two key phrases that Minister Taylor has used over the last couple of days. The first one is that he's had 'no association', and the second one is that he has been 'at arm's length'. I just want to go to those, because I think that they are important.
We've seen the evidence provided in question time today around 'no association'. But what we now know is that Minister Taylor was a director of Gufee, which has a joint one-third interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd, and Jam Land Pty Ltd has been investigated by the minister's own department, the Department of the Environment and Energy, as to illegal land-clearing and the poisoning of critically endangered native grassland in October 2016. So it is clear that the minister has an association with this property. So no more can the minister rely on 'no association' and to try to claim that he had no association with this property that has been under investigation by this department.
As to the second phrase, 'at arm's length': I think Minister Taylor takes 'at arm's length' literally—from the media, it seems he thinks, 'I was more than an arm's length away'! Obviously, it is a vastly different scenario when we know that he has an interest in this property and we also know that he organised a meeting that he was at with his own department where these issues were raised. So no longer can he rely on 'no association' and no longer can he say that he was 'at arm's length' when we know that he was involved in a meeting where this issue was brought up.
It became clear today from the performance of Senator Birmingham and of Senator Cormann that they changed tack from the way they answered questions yesterday, where they tried to appear quite confident. Today they were very cautious in their defence of Minister Taylor. We also saw that Senator Fierravanti-Wells did not try and defend Minister Taylor. We also saw that Senator McGrath danced around a couple of issues but wasn't prepared to defend Minister Taylor in this chamber.
We will continue to pursue these issues because we think that ministerial standards are important. We think that ministerial standards and accountability are important. But we also know that this arrogant government, if they aren't held to account, will continue that level of arrogance and will continue to go down that path where they treat the voters with contempt and don't treat issues of accountability seriously at all.
At the end of the day, where this will ultimately end up—as we continue to pursue these issues and to pursue Minister Taylor in this chamber and in the other chamber—is with the Prime Minister. He is the one who is responsible for this government. He is the one who has been arrogant post his election result. Again, I think that, on this issue of accountability, when it comes to Minister Taylor and to previous ministers, the Prime Minister needs to show some leadership on this issue and ensure that this minister answers the question. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator McAllister to take note be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
China: Human Rights
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:30): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to human rights in China.
On Monday night the ABC's Four Corners program dedicated an episode to the appalling human rights abuses that are occurring in China's Xinjiang region right now while the world watches on. Xinjiang has a Turkic Muslim population of 13 million people, approximately one million of whom are arbitrarily detained without any legal process. They are detained for weeks, months and, sometimes, years. Those incarcerated are subjected to forced labour, sometimes to torture and to forced political indoctrination.
Outside the camps Uygurs and other Turkic Muslims are denied the right to freedom of movement, privacy and freedom of religion. The mass surveillance that is occurring in Xinjiang is terrifying. People going about their lawful daily business are watched constantly by the state. They are forced to give their biometric data, and face and voice recognition technology is being used as a tool of repression. The revelation in the Four Corners program that Australian universities seem to be complicit in the development of this technology is even more appalling.
And Four Corners showed us the Australian human face of this dedicated oppression thanks to the bravery of those who spoke out—and we acknowledge them. It brought us the story of Sadam Abudusalamu's wife, Nadila, and his toddler, Lutfy, who were trapped in Xinjiang. Through no fault of their own, Nadila and Lutfy were separated from Sadam before Lutfy's birth, and the Chinese authorities have prevented them from being reunited. Sadam has never met his son. He wasn't there to support his wife through the last part of her pregnancy. He didn't witness his son's birth. He says he is totally broken mentally, financially and physically.
It is a great relief that Lutfy has been granted Australian citizenship and that the Foreign Minister has intervened to call for Sadam's family to be permitted to travel to Australia. What is required now is for Nadila's visa to be fast-tracked and for the government to keep up the pressure on the Chinese government. And many other Australian Uygurs are affected by China's brutal crackdown. Almas Nizamidin's mum is interned in a camp and his wife is in prison simply for studying in Egypt. Amnesty International classifies her as a prisoner of conscience, and she is waiting for a spousal visa, which must also be fast-tracked. There are more than 30,000 Uygurs in Australia. In some form or other, all of these people have a friend or relative in a camp.
The Greens are calling on the government to take urgent action in the face of what is cultural genocide. The Australian government's decision to sign on to a joint statement of the UN Human Rights Council was welcome—indeed, I said that to the minister in question time—but we must do more. It was disappointing that the minister was unable to provide me with a concrete number of Australian citizens who are currently detained. It was also disappointing that the minister couldn't detail in her answer to my question what concrete steps the government will be taking to pressure China to stop this campaign of repression.
Of course, we need to work with other countries in our region to make sure that independent monitors have access to Xinjiang. But we need to do more. We need to show some courage. We need to show some leadership. We should be implementing targeted sanctions, like visa bans and asset freezes, against those individuals who are linked to these abuses.
Australia has in the past been a leading voice on human rights in the international arena. Over recent years we have been absent when it comes to ensuring that human rights are protected around the world. If there was ever a time for Australia to start actually leading the way on human rights abuses, it is now.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:35): I give notice that tomorrow I will move a motion referring certain matters to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report in relation to the conduct of Mr Taylor and Mr Frydenberg, and I will provide terms of reference to the Clerk prior to the Senate rising.
Presentation
Senator Canavan to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to intellectual property, and for related purposes. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) 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 Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, and for related purposes. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2019.
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, and for related purposes. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) there is no safe solution to storing the vast amounts of hazardous nuclear waste created by reactors,
(ii) constructing nuclear power stations is hugely expensive, costing billions of dollars, and often far exceeding the original estimate,
(iii) estimates indicate a typical nuclear reactor uses millions of litres of water per day,
(iv) the Fukushima disaster in 2011 resulted in the evacuation of 160,000 people and, some two years later, 81,000 evacuees remained displaced over concerns of radiological effects,
(v) the Chernobyl disaster contaminated a radius of 30 km from the reactor explosion, resulting in the forced resettlement of hundreds of thousands of people, and
(vi) Australian law prohibits the development of nuclear power; and
(b) reaffirms its support for Section 140A (No approval for certain nuclear installations) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Senators Steele-John and Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that Mr John Ryan AM, and Ms Barbara Bennett PSM, are recognised for their long and distinguished public service careers,
(ii) that however, as key decision makers of public service institutions which will be the subject of investigation and examination during the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, they have significant and unmanageable conflicts of interest which are highly likely to jeopardise the integrity of the Royal Commission,
(iii) that over 60 disability organisations have called for the resignation and removal of these two individuals as commissioners for the Royal Commission,
(iv) that these organisations have created a set of six criteria to guide the government in the appointment of replacement commissioners,
(v) the 1500 individuals who have signed a petition calling for both Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett to step down—many individuals and advocates from the disability community, including former People with Disability Australia President, Mr Craig Wallace, have said they will not give evidence to the Royal Commission should these individuals remain, and
(vi) that it is essential that disabled people, their families, and their organisations have confidence in the processes and recommendations of the Royal Commission; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to immediately remove Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett as Commissioners, and replace them with individuals who meet the positive criteria set out by the disability community.
(2) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(a) answers to outstanding questions taken on notice in relation to the 2018-19 additional estimates and the 2019-20 Budget estimates, and which remained unanswered at the beginning of the 46th Parliament, be provided to legislation committees by 31 July 2019; and
(b) for the purposes of standing order 74(5), the day set for answering each of the unanswered questions is 31 July 2019.
Senator Keneally to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 12pm on 31 July 2019, the completed strategic review of the Home Affairs portfolio as announced in the 2018-19 Budget.
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, by no later than 2 pm on 1 August 2019, the report by Cadence Economics, commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, in relation to the costs and benefits of responding to climate change.
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) today marks the 25th anniversary since the introduction of poker machines in pubs and clubs in South Australia,
(ii) despite numerous recommendations by the Commonwealth Productivity Commission (PC) and other inquiries, there has been no meaningful poker machine reform in terms of harm minimisation,
(iii) according to the PC's 2010 report into gambling, 15% of regular poker machine players are so-called 'problem gamblers' with approximately 40-60% of spending on poker machines coming from 'problem gamblers',
(iv) the PC's 2010 report highlighted the significant social cost of gambling–estimated at that time to be at least $4 billion,
(v) despite having only 0.3% of the world's population, Australia reportedly has 6% of the world's conventional gaming machines and 18% of its poker machines, and
(vi) Australians lose approximately $24 billion per year on gambling, a figure which is more than any other nation; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) recognise the ongoing harm gambling causes, which varies from emotional to financial costs, and commit to meaningful harm minimisation, and
(ii) instruct the Commonwealth Productivity Commission to conduct a new inquiry to provide an updated perspective on gambling and propose relevant recommendations.
Senator Wong to move:
That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 October 2019:
(a) whether a compliance investigation by the Department of the Environment and Energy in relation to the Natural Temperate Grassland of the South Eastern Highlands ecological community has been adversely affected by the actions of the Member for Hume, Mr Taylor, the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, or any other persons;
(b) whether the conduct of Mr Taylor and Mr Frydenberg, in relation to the compliance investigation, represents a proper and disinterested exercise of their responsibilities under the laws of the Commonwealth and the Statement of Ministerial Standards; and
(c) any related matters.
Senator Dodson to move
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2020:
The impact of the level of Newstart and related payments and supports on poverty, inequality, the ability of people to secure work, and the economy, including:
(a) the adequacy of payments and their impact on people's standard of living and opportunities;
(b) the economic cost of long-term unemployment, underemployment, poverty and inequality;
(c) the economic benefits–including job creation, locally and nationally–of increasing and improving payments and supports, and decreasing poverty and inequality;
(d) the impact of geography, age and other characteristics on the number of people receiving payments, long-term unemployment and poverty;
(e) the impact of payment rates on peoples' ability to fulfil activity requirements and secure employment or training;
(f) the structural causes of long term unemployment and long-term reliance on Newstart;
(g) the impact of the rate of payments and related policies on older job seekers, young people, First Nations Australians and people with disability;
(h) the most effective strategies for improving payments and supports, taking into account:
(i) the changing nature of work and insecure work,
(ii) the need to ensure an adequate standard of living, relieve poverty and ensure supports are targeted at those most in need,
(iii) the cost of safe and secure housing,
(iv) the specific needs of people from varying cohorts, for example, age, single parents, long-term unemployed, and those impacted by structural economic change,
(v) interactions with other payments and services, including the loss of any increased payments through higher rents and costs,
(vi) interactions with activity requirements,
(vii) the need to ensure strong incentives to work, train and study, and
(viii) the cost and fiscal sustainability of any changes;
(i) the relative merits of alternative investments in health, education, housing and other programs to improve outcomes; and
(j) other related matters.
Postponement
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:35): In light of the opposition's giving notice of a motion for a similar inquiry to the one that I have on the Notice Paper, I'll be postponing business of the Senate notice of motion No.1 until Monday, 29 July.
Postponement
The Clerk: Further postponement notifications have been lodged as follows:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Waters for today, proposing a reference to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 29 July 2019.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee (Senator Siewert) for today, proposing a reference to the Community Affairs References Committee, postponed till 25 July 2019.
General business notice of motion no. 50 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale) for today, relating to detentions in China, postponed till 25 July 2019.
The PRESIDENT ( 15:36 ): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
MOTIONS
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:37): At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 17 July 2019 marked the fifth anniversary since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine;
(b) expresses its deepest sympathy to the families of the 298 innocent passengers and crew, including 38 who called Australia home, who were killed in this tragedy;
(c) commends the work of the Australian Federal Police for their integral role in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT);
(d) welcomes the announcement of the JIT supporting the prosecution of three Russians and one Ukrainian for their alleged roles in the downing of MH17;
(e) calls on Russia to do everything in its power to ensure that the four men charged with this crime can stand trial in the Netherlands; and
(f) expresses its support for ongoing efforts by authorities in Australia, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium and the Netherlands to bring those responsible for this horrendous crime to justice.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Rural Doctors Workforce Agency
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:37): I, and also on behalf of Senator Griff, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Department of Health funds the Rural Doctors Workforce Agency (RDWA) to deliver Rural Health Workforce Support Activity in South Australia,
(ii) the RDWA complete an annual Health Workforce Needs Assessment in consultation with a Health Workforce Stakeholder Group in South Australia,
(iii) the town of Kimba has been without a resident doctor for more than one year, and
(iv) the lack of a resident doctor in rural, regional and remote areas is a common problem across South Australia; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by no later than 4.30 pm on 25 July 2019, the most recent annual RDWA Health Workforce Needs Assessment.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
State of Origin
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): At the request of Senators Keneally, Ayres, McAllister, O'Neill, Sheldon, Bragg, Davey, Faruqi, Fierravanti-Wells, Hughes, Payne, Sinodinos and Seselja, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the contribution that rugby league makes to the health and enjoyment of Australians; and
(b) congratulates:
(i) the New South Wales (NSW) Blues for winning the 2019 State of Origin series,
(ii) NSW coach, Mr Brad Fittler, for being the second Blues coach to win back-to-back series,
(iii) NSW captain, Mr Boyd Cordner, for leading the Blues to back-to-back series victories for the first time since 2005,
(iv) NSW fullback, Mr James Tedesco, for winning the Wally Lewis Medal for Player of Origin series,
(v) NSW halfback, Mr Mitchell Pearce and winger, Mr Blake Ferguson, for setting up the passage of play for Mr Tedesco's match winning try, and
(vi) all Blues' players, coaches and support staff.
Question agreed to.
Live Animal Exports
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:38): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Australian Government has committed to the public release of summary reports from independent observers on live export ships,
(ii) following the release of the first report in November 2018, the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Littleproud MP, stated that "full transparency is the only way to build public trust in any industry" and that "the Australian public must have trust in the integrity and regulation of the live export trade. Reports from Independent Observers are a huge part of building this trust", and
(iii) to date, less than half of the Independent Observer summary reports from 2018 have been finalised and publicly released, and no 2019 reports have been released; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) commit to transparency in the live exports industry,
(ii) release the outstanding Independent Observer summary reports, and
(iii) commit to release future Independent Observer summary reports in a timely manner.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Our government supports this motion. The government remains strongly committed to ensuring that high welfare standards are maintained in the live export trade. That's why our government, with the support of industry, committed to independent observers on live export voyages to provide transparency and oversight to the highest level. In 2018 the government announced our intention to further improve transparency of the export trade by releasing the summary reports of the independent observers publicly. We remain committed to ensuring transparency is upheld to ensure that the confidence on animal welfare outcomes that the government expects is given to the trade. The Minister for Agriculture recently met with live exporters in Western Australia, and they also want independent observer summary reports made public. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, as the independent live export regulator, is responsible for setting operating rules for exports and uploading independent observer reports, and is working hard to deliver the independent observer reports in a timely manner.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Shadow Minister for Finance, Shadow Minister for the Public Service and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: Labor supports the motion today to ensure that the live animal exports commitments made by the previous minister for agriculture, David Littleproud, post the Awassi event are upheld by the new Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. Increased transparency will ensure that the department of agriculture does not go backwards in its regulatory culture and that the 31 recommendations of the Moss review are made a priority.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (15:41): I move:
(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.
(2) That the following bills be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of each of the bills resume at the stage reached in the 45th Parliament:
Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019
Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Nuclear Waste
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:41): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that recent reports that the proposed nuclear waste dump site in South Australia will be expanded, covering at least 160 hectares, an increase of 60%, are deeply troubling given the lack of consultation; and
(b) calls on the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Senator Canavan, to provide a full explanation of the current plans for the nuclear waste dump site, and to clarify exactly how large it will be and what level of waste it will hold.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government is engaged in detailed consultation with the communities of Hawker and Kimba as part of the nomination process for a national radioactive waste management facility. This engagement has included the permanent presence of Australian government officials in excess of 18 months in both communities. The construction of a waste facility is an essential part of the provision of nuclear medicines. On average, one in every two Australians will require nuclear medicines during their lifetime. The government has been fully transparent about its plans and will provide the detail in a formal response to the motion.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Shadow Minister for Finance, Shadow Minister for the Public Service and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:42): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: Labor supports this motion. We believe the minister should act in accordance with the relevant act. Concerns, including those on consultation, should be addressed if and when they arrive.
Question agreed to.
Great Barrier Reef
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:43): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 17 July 2019, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority released a Position Statement on Climate Change, which stated: 'climate change is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Only the strongest and fastest possible actions to decrease global greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the risks and limit the impacts of climate change on the Reef'... 'If we are to secure a future for the Great Barrier Reef and coral reef ecosystems globally, there is an urgent and critical need to accelerate actions to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This must happen in parallel to taking actions to build the Reef's resilience',
(ii) in an address to the British Parliament on 9 July 2019, Sir David Attenborough criticised Australia for not taking the risks of climate change seriously, and imperilling the Great Barrier Reef,
(iii) at its meeting in 2015, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee gave the Australian Government five years to address the state of the Great Barrier Reef before it re-considered whether to include it on the World Heritage In Danger list—the Australian Government is due to submit a report addressing the protection of the Reef's Outstanding Universal Value to avert an In Danger listing by 1 December 2019,
(iv) scientific reports confirm that approximately half of the shallow water coral of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost since 2016 due to successive coral bleaching incidents,
(v) the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators has signed a Reef Climate Declaration that acknowledges climate change as "the single biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef" and states that "Australia must join the rest of the world to rapidly phase out coal and other fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy",
(vi) the Great Barrier Reef supports approximately 64,000 jobs and generates $6 billion for the Australian economy annually,
(vii) the science and the economics are clear that these jobs are at risk if strong action is not taken immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C, and
(viii) fossil fuel companies have donated nearly $5 million to the Liberals, The Nationals and Labor parties over the past four years; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) affirm the advice of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that climate change is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef,
(ii) direct Mr Warren Entsch, Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, to prioritise actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
(iii) implement a climate policy that accelerates actions to limit global warming to 1.5°C to protect the Great Barrier Reef,
(iv) take all action necessary to properly protect the Great Barrier Reef and avoid the UNESCO World Heritage Committee needing to place the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage In Danger list,
(v) revoke all federal approvals for the Adani Carmichael mine and not approve any new coal in Australia, and
(vi) develop a clear plan to move towards 100% clean energy, including a plan for a just transition for Australia's regional workforces affected by climate change so that regional economies can thrive and workers are protected, and ban corporate donations to political parties from the fossil fuel industry, an industry which financially benefits from this Government's lack of action on climate change.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:43): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government accepts the scientific advice relating to the reef and global climate change, and the scientific advice that our initiatives will make the reef more resilient. The Morrison government is meeting its international climate commitments. It is investing $3.5 billion in its climate solutions plan. We are investing an unprecedented $1.2 billion in protecting the reef from threats such as crown-of-thorns starfish, marine litter and illegal fishing. We are working with scientists, local communities, farmers, traditional owners and tourism groups to improve water quality and maintain the reef as one of the world's great tourism destinations.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Newstart Allowance
Youth Allowance
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:50): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 47 standing in my name for today relating to Youth Allowance and Newstart.
Leave granted.
Senator SIEWERT: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the rate of Newstart for single people without children is $555.70 per fortnight,
(ii) that the Federal Government has taken action to address deeming rates acknowledging that part-pensioners were struggling,
(iii) that the Salvation Army's 2018 Economic and Social Impact Survey found that after paying for accommodation, Newstart recipients were left with $17 a day,
(iv) the findings of an analysis by the Australian National University's Professor Peter Whiteford, that Newstart is the second lowest unemployment payment in the OECD if we look at the replacement rate, and
(v) that the Anglicare Rental Affordability Snapshot 2019 found there were zero affordable rentals for a single person on Newstart or Youth Allowance in any major Australian city; and
(b) urges the Federal Government to immediately increase the single rate of Newstart and Youth Allowance.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert, as amended, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:55]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
National Security
The PRESIDENT (15:57): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, four 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 Roberts:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
That the flawed and dangerous Medevac legislation undermines Australia's border security and must be urgently repealed.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the senators in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:58): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to emphasise that Pauline Hanson's One Nation is deeply concerned about the security of people in our country. We are uniquely positioned in the world, as our location as an island nation puts us in a position where the isolation of distance in times past has provided the natural barriers and protection of being surrounded by ocean. This barrier of sea has, in the past, been a natural protective barrier against disease, noxious pests and other simple dangers. But we live in complex times, and in these times it is also a barrier to the modern dangers of complex terrorism and keeps out those who would challenge the Australian way of life and the safety and security of Australians.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation party understands what is needed to run this country. Strong laws are required to provide strong border security to ensure that people who come to Australia do so by a path that allows clear identification of persons who do not pose an unacceptable risk to our culture and to the personal safety of our citizens. We must be vigilant in keeping out of Australia people whose beliefs and conduct threaten our way of life and, indeed, our lives. Pauline Hanson's One Nation also has the aim of ensuring that our laws are fair and do not provide excess benefits to some to the detriment of others. People residing offshore who have attempted to come to our country outside the normal rules are not entitled to the benefits beyond what Australians living in mainland Australia can access.
The medevac legislation is an abomination for many reasons. It is providing a back doorway for queue jumpers to come to onshore Australia, and they receive a standard of medical care that many Australians cannot afford or receive. Some come with their families, and they never leave. What is fair about that? They are like the less than welcome family guests who may come to our home for a few days and stay and stay indefinitely. The level of care, the standard of medical care offered to these freeloaders is higher than that available to many hardworking Australians living in our rural areas. Is this fair? I say not. What about the costs to the taxpayer? Just to get one person medevaced to Australia is in excess of $100,000—more than the income of very many Australians earned over a full year; in fact, it's 20 per cent more than the average wage in this country. Is this fair? I say not. These queue jumpers are in fact double-dipping. Firstly, they jump the queue to get to Australia, and, secondly, they get treatment that is unaffordable for many Australians already doing it tough.
Let us consider the nature of many of these queue jumpers. Many are not refugees in the usual sense, but are economic migrants seeking a better life and jumping the queue to do this. That's not fair. Some have already been accepted to go to the United States, but rejected that option, choosing our country, Australia, as a better choice because of our more favourable welfare system. This is seriously out of whack. It is ironic that the services available to these queue jumpers offshore are in many instances more than those that are available to Australians living in our rural areas.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation offers policies that will provide effective stewardship of Australian assets. We will not support projects that waste public moneys, the money of the Australian people. We accept the responsibility and trust placed in us by the Australian voters. We will always support projects that benefit Australians. Many Australians would benefit from a helping hand, yet this legislation is geared for spending money on non-Australians who have jumped the queue to come here in the first place.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation stands for good governance. This means ensuring we support policies that assure the future of Australians, working to the benefit of all Australian citizens. Pauline Hanson's One Nation party notes the importance of good trusteeship. For us this means supporting, protecting and providing guardianship of the great values that are part of Australian culture. We believe in giving a person a fair go. That does not mean a free ride. Many of the queue jumpers must see this legislation as a golden gift, a means to a shortcut into Australia, and all on the say-so of two doctors who may never have even seen or met the detainees. Who would know what the ultimate intention is to get to Australia? Minimum vetting is not helpful. How easy would this system be for an undesirable criminal or terrorist to abuse and come to our country.
Our border protection is an imperative responsibility, and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party sees this legislation as a failure in every aspect. So do the people of Wentworth, who turfed out Kerryn Phelps after just months and now have a Liberal back in their place. And the dollar cost: at $100,000 a go, can we afford to haemorrhage money into a system that has no cap on spending? I say not. As a reasonable and responsible party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation does not support the ongoing nature of this program and calls for the immediate repeal of this dangerous legislation.
I want to talk about three of the things that I have mentioned in this speech: firstly, stewardship; secondly, governance; and thirdly, trusteeship. These are the three main cores of governance. Whether it be managing a company, a club or a nation, stewardship of current assets consists of two aspects: cost of living at the national level and security of the people. They are stewardship functions, and Liberal-Labor duopolies over the last six decades have failed in their stewardship of the assets. The cost of living is out of control for many people. It is becoming unaffordable to live in this country, and the security concerns are being undermined by the types of people that we're allowing into this country. The second aspect is governance, which is about providing for the future, and that means for the Australians who aren't even born yet. We're responsible for them, what they will do in their lives and their opportunities. The third aspect of governance is trusteeship of our values. What makes this country so wonderful are the Australian values—mateship, fairness, compliance with the law, respect for the law, and so many others that we know about ourselves and we take for granted as we live our lives in this beautiful country.
We need to have a vision for the future. We don't see that. We see Labor squandering our assets. We see the Liberal Party just making up facades and then selling those facades. We don't see a vision for this country in terms of infrastructure; we don't see a vision for this country and the way people will be living in 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 years; and we don't see the protection of our culture. The most valuable asset of any entity is culture. It's what determines productivity in a company. It's what determines safety and productivity and the future livelihoods of people in any nation, and that is being undermined. Immigration affects all three aspects of governance—stewardship; governance, in terms of providing for the future; and trusteeship of our values.
It's not just a matter of security that is being decimated here; it is a matter of our future, and not just the future of the people who are alive now but the future of Australians who are not even born yet. What did medevac do? It bypassed formal procedures for vetting. The campaign for getting Kerryn Phelps into the seat of Wentworth was funded by GetUp!, a notorious organisation driving an agenda funded by George Soros, who is the pin-up boy for criminals, the CFMMEU and Mr Bill Shorten, who was one of the foundation's directors. The people of Wentworth saw this error. They were fooled by GetUp!, but then they repented.
Instead of a Soros-controlled country, we want a secure, productive country with great productive capacity. At night we don't lock the front door of our house because we hate the people outside; we lock the front door of our house because we love the people inside. Government's primary role is to protect the people already in Australia. We must end this medevac abomination and lock our country's front door once again.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (16:08): The coalition supports the proposition that is before the chamber. Let's remember that a fundamental purpose of the nation-state is, in fact, to protect those within it. Therefore, if a nation-state cannot protect its borders, it is not a nation-state worthy of that description. That is why the Howard government embarked upon a border protection policy which worked, and, as a result, we stopped the gatecrashers coming into Australia.
In 2007 Labor leader Kevin Rudd promised that he too would turn back the boats and that he too would ensure the protection of our borders. But what did the Labor-Greens government of the 2007 to 2013 era do?
They went back on their promise to the Australian people and allowed over 50,000 people to come to Australia via criminal people smugglers. They were of the view that people who could afford criminals should be given priority over those in actual need. So we as a government in 2013 went to the Australian people saying we would again stop the boats, we would turn back boats and we would have a refugee intake based on need, not on capacity to pay criminal people smugglers. We did that and we achieved that.
So why are we today still talking about people on Manus and Nauru? It is the legacy of the Labor-Greens governments. Let us never forget that. The reason that we have legislation now on the books, the so-called medevac law, is as a result of Labor and the Greens taking advantage of a minority situation during the last parliament to try to force this issue and signal to the world, and indeed to all Australians, that they had not learnt the lesson of the 2007 to 2013 era of allowing 50,000 people to literally gatecrash Australia, part of which—might I remind you—saw over 1,000 people drown at sea. Where is the social justice in that? Where is the social justice in denying refugee status in Australia to people who are needy, because they've been displaced by people who have been able to afford to pay criminal people smugglers, by people who have never set foot in a refugee camp? But they're the people that Labor and the Greens and the Left and GetUp! would support in favour of those genuinely in need. That is why so many of the refugees that have come to Australia in recent times and have become Australian citizens actually voted for the coalition, because they saw the injustice of the Labor-Greens-GetUp! approach in allowing boat people to come here who had never set foot in a refugee camp. But those who had been living in a refugee camp for 10 to 20 years waiting for resettlement saw that the coalition policy was in fact the correct policy and it was the just policy, and we on this side believe that is the right way to go.
Later today, the people of Australia will be regaled by what I am sure will be an excellent speech by the new member for Braddon, which will follow an excellent speech given in the first week of the 46th Parliament by the member for Bass. Labor and the Greens might like to think and contemplate why it is that those two seats changed hands? Can I say to the Labor Party—I don't know why I'm giving them this gratuitous advice—one of the reasons is their constituency, which had previously voted Labor, saw through Labor's medevac laws, where they cooperated with the Greens and with GetUp!, and told the people of Braddon and Bass that they had not learnt the lessons in relation to border protection.
Coming to the actual medevac bill, which was forced through this parliament, and which I hope will be repealed as soon as possible, it is an insult to the people of Manus and Nauru, because what they're basically saying is that the medical provisions that the ordinary citizens of Nauru and Papua New Guinea have are not of a sufficient standard. If that is what the Greens and Labor genuinely believe, why is it then that not everybody from Manus or Nauru that has a medical situation should be allowed to come to Australia? It is a very patronising and ugly reflection on Nauruans and on our friends in Manus.
The legislation that Labor and the Greens forced through the parliament without any consultation with experts or our national security people was designed to send a signal to the green, Left inner-city types that they would go back on strong border protection. That was the signalling that they undertook. They undertook it sufficiently successfully to make the Australian people realise that if they wanted to keep strong borders they had to return the coalition government. That is what the people of Australia did on 18 May. They did not only renew the government's mandate, they in fact increased it.
If the Labor Party and the Greens want to continue to go down this line of saying, 'This medevac law is a good law,' I say you are welcome to it, but the Australian people have sought to send you a message in relation to border protection. They've tried to send you a message in relation to what a just, fair and reasonable refugee policy and intake is. Labor can continue to live in denial, but we as a government will continue to ensure that we have good, strong border protection policies and that we do not send any signals to the criminal people smugglers that we are open for their terrible trade in human misery.
Let's be very clear, there was no medical emergency in relation to the people on Nauru and Manus. Indeed, during the period of the medevac bill, over 900 people have been brought to Australia for particular medical treatment. They were treated on a fair and reasonable basis. So why is there this legislation when Labor, the Greens and GetUp!! knew about the actual numbers and the provision that we had to look after them?
We were told during the debate when it occurred—I recall telling the Senate during that debate—that there was one celebrated case of a person demanding evacuation to Australia. The doctors thought it was not necessary. Legal action was being taken. You can imagine the rest. The person was finally evacuated, but not on a normal, regular flight. It had to be a charter flight to Brisbane. That was undertaken at a cost of over $100,000 to our fellow Australians. The person was taken to hospital and diagnosed with, dare I say it, constipation. Doctors had signed off on this and, as soon as the person arrived in Australia, what happened? Lawyers went to work to ensure the person couldn't be taken back from whence that patient came from. This is the sort of manipulation that, sadly, occurs.
As Senator Roberts indicated to the Senate: you can have two activist doctors say, 'On the basis of what we read, this person should be medevaced to Australia,' without actually having seen the person or spoken with the person in any way, shape or form. Is that the way to run government? Is that the way to run national security? Is that good stewardship of the taxpayers' dollar? The answer to each of those questions is no, no and no, which begs the question: why is it that the Labor Party and the Greens persist, and continue to persist, with this nonsense, which should by now have embarrassed them into a quiet retreat and putting the white flag up the flagpole? Whilst the Labor Party and the Greens will not learn the lessons of 18 May, the Australian people can be assured we will continue to pursue strong border protection for our nation.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (16:18): Flawed and dangerous: that is exactly how I would describe those who've put forward this MPI motion today. Senator Roberts has, in this motion, described the medevac legislation as flawed and dangerous—just like One Nation.
This legislation passed by Labor and the crossbench has already been proven sensible and humane. It is simply designed to ensure that people who are sick or who need health care get it, all while remaining in security of Australia's borders. It's sensible and logical legislation that allows those who are unwell, in ill-health, to be given the medical attention that they need. We don't want to see further deterioration or complication in their health issues that could lead to serious negative health outcomes, and we've actually seen clear examples of that in our offshore processing regime. Denying people the health care they need is clearly dangerous and flawed.
Senator Roberts seems to have forgotten the mechanism by which the legislation works in practice, so shall we outline them to the Senate again one more time? Under the legislation, a medevac can only be used by two or more independent doctors. Doctors should always have the objective authority on health matters, in my view. Who should assess a person's health and wellbeing and determine whether they are in a critical condition and in need of urgent medical attention? Clearly, it should be a doctor. What we saw in the previous model was that doctors would provide advice, but that would then be referred to various bureaucracies and government departments to work out whether arrangements should be made. Essentially, it became an act of veto over an independent medical assessment.
Clearly, what's designed to happen under this legislation—and it is working quite well—is that the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs is advised that a patient needs to be brought to Australia for medical treatment. This process ensures the Minister for Home Affairs has the discretion required to bring that patient into the country on the grounds of security, public safety and character. For example, where a patient might have a criminal record and would expose the Australian community to a risk of criminal conduct, that transfer can be denied. They may also deny entry due to security concerns, through the advice of ASIO, such as if ASIO advises the minister that the transfer of the patient is prejudicial to the security of Australia and the threat can't be mitigated. That is a veto right the minister is yet to use.
These solutions were embedded in the original medevac legislation, and that is how the act is currently operating. We did that because we understand the importance of national security, we understand the importance of deterrence at our borders and we understand that the need for ministerial discretion in some cases is imperative. This is a process which is currently working well, and which has nothing to do with opening the floodgates into Australia. In fact, the process has only led to 90 approvals being made by the minister, who is acting according to the rule of law in making approvals upon doctors' advice to admit people to Australia for proper treatment. That means that 90 people that Minister Dutton previously might have refused treatment to have now been able to come to Australia for treatment. The legislative framework of medevac has enshrined patients' access to medical treatment in Australia only where appropriate medical treatment has not been accessible in the place of offshore processing.
One Nation's aim to repeal these medevac laws altogether is simply another thing that strips away the dignity of asylum seekers who are dealing with serious medical issues. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, an organisation which supports those seeking asylum, has described the process outlined in the legislation as 'rigorous, independent and transparent'. Medevac can be seen to be working. If I had expected more from One Nation, I would be talking about how this kind of brazen disregard for human rights in our nation is shocking. But I don't expect more from them or from this government. One Nation's track record on disrespecting the rights of all of those different to themselves, like their positions on First Nations people, LGBTI rights, and immigration—well, of course their position on asylum seekers would be to continue to see them suffer in detention centres and from preventable causes of ill-health and death.
But, clearly, we can't forget in this place that it's not just One Nation who it seems would prefer to prevent people getting the medical care they need. The government would like to repeal this legislation. Minister Dutton, who has consistently misled the Australian people and who has bleated about the weakening of Australia's borders, has expressed his desire to repeal it. There is no weakening of Australia's borders with these laws. It's very clear that anyone who arrives or attempts to arrive by boat now or in the future is simply not eligible for transfer under the medevac legislation. It only applies to those people who were already on Manus and Nauru prior to the legislation being enacted on 1 March 2019. We've seen none of the catastrophic events that the politically motivated statements claimed were going to ensue after this legislation came into being. But Minister Dutton does not care about that one iota. They don't seem to care that the medevac legislation is actually working. They don't care that they already have a right of veto for anyone they think is a threat to this country. They clearly really don't care that, by repealing this legislation, there will be a very real and inhumane impact.
It appears that the only thing that this government cares about is continuing a political tantrum that occurred earlier this year and last year when the bill went through without them, when human rights triumphed over the fear and prejudice that was peddled by the government. They were left out and hurt by progress and fairness being implemented without them. So here we are today suffering through another back step in creating a fair society, due to the government's inexplicable feelings of relevance deprivation, as has been shown time and time again since this bill was passed and in the subsequent months since it was implemented.
Medevac is not an attempt to bring all people who are in offshore processing on Papua New Guinea and Nauru to Australia. It is not a bill to weaken our borders, and it clearly has not done so. It is certainly not a bill for the government and its stooges to use to enact revenge for their past losses. It is a bill that allows people who need it to receive treatment that they most definitely require.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:29): I rise on yet another matter brought to this parliament on which Senator Roberts does not have a single clue about what he's talking about. Again Senator Roberts is pretending he knows more about what is going on than the medical or scientific experts. We shouldn't be surprised about that, because Senator Roberts has built an entire political career on denying science. Now, of course, he wants to deny the doctors. Let's be clear about what the medevac laws do. The medevac laws put decisions about medical care for desperately ill people in the hands of doctors, where they should be. They take those decisions out of the hands of politicians, where they never, ever should have been in the first place.
Let me ask the Senate one question: if any of you were to fall ill, would you seek the opinion of Senator Roberts about your illness? Would you seek the opinion of Minister Dutton about your illness? I'll answer that for you: no, you wouldn't. Who would you seek the opinion of? You would seek the opinion of a doctor about your illness, not Minister Peter Dutton.
Do you reckon that you would say, 'Oh, two medical professionals—two doctors—say that I urgently need to go to hospital, but what do you reckon, Minister? Do you reckon that I'm going to be okay?' No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't bother Minister Dutton with your health problems, you'd go and see a doctor and you would follow the advice from that doctor.
The prisoners on Manus Island and Nauru—and, yes, they are prisoners, contrary to the untruths that were told to this chamber by Minister Reynolds yesterday; they are horrific places. Does everyone know why I can get up here and say that with far more veracity than anyone else? Because I've been there, and no-one else in this chamber has. In fact, I've been to Manus Island six times, and I was in the centre when, under the instructions of the Australian government, that prison was laid siege to by the Papua New Guinea navy and the mobile squad of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary. They cut off the food, the drinking water, the electricity and the medical supports for over 600 desperate and vulnerable people.
The policy of offshore detention has been a humanitarian calamity. People have been murdered and they've been assaulted. Children have been sexually assaulted. People have been raped and have been subjected to brutalisation in a system designed deliberately to dehumanise. People have died because they've been exiled there as Australia's modern political prisoners.
People in the chamber know this. Senator Roberts knows this. Minister Dutton knows this, because the cruelty, the deprivations, the humanitarian calamity and the abuse of human rights are exactly the point of offshore detention. This entire regime of deterrence is based on the premise that life in offshore detention has to be made worse than the conditions people are fleeing in the first place. People are leaving some of the most dangerous and hostile places on the planet, and they have to be reminded that nothing but brutality and misery awaits them. That is why offshore detention was instituted. It is a practice that is akin to impaling corpses on the walls of medieval cities, which we used to do hundreds of years ago, in order to dissuade other desperate souls from trying to gain entry. These people are political prisoners and they are being treated like the corpses we used to impale on the walls of medieval cities.
There is no doubt that the medevac legislation is saving lives. It saves lives, and it is actually crucial that these laws are maintained so more lives can be saved. The Greens were proud, and I was proud, to co-sponsor the amendment that created the medevac laws in the first place, and I'll be very proud to stand with my Greens colleagues to defend those laws against the cruelty of the Liberal Party and against the cruelty of the One Nation party. We will never, ever give up the fight until this dark and bloody chapter in Australia's story comes to an end, until we regain the previous high position we had in the global human rights community and until these desperate people that we have harmed so profoundly get the freedom and safety they so desperately need and deserve.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (16:34): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, which is framed:
That the flawed and dangerous Medevac legislation—
That were effected by Labor and the crossbench before the election—
undermines Australia’s border security and must be urgently repealed.
Most people have a longer memory than those on the crossbench and in Labor, but for those who can't remember, let me help them out. In the almost six years in which Labor was in power between 2007 and 2013, 50,000 people arrived in Australia illegally—using our waters and arriving in 800 boats. Eight thousand children were put into onshore detention in Australia, including 2,000 who remained in detention when the coalition came to government. At the worst of the people-smuggling trade and illegal arrivals there were 10,000 people living in 17 detention centres in Australia. If that wasn't bad enough, Australian taxpayers were paying $16 billion—not million, billion—to feed, house and clothe these detainees, in addition to the costs of processing them when they didn't have any documentation.
Now, I know I rattled off a lot of numbers, but let me give you the worst number of all—and it is 1,200. Twelve hundred people died at sea attempting to gain access to Australia's borders. Twelve hundred men, women and, sadly, children—
Senator Duniam: That we know of.
Senator STOKER: You're absolutely right, Senator Duniam—that we know of—died in this process. But Operation Sovereign Borders has been an enormous success. Stop the boats and you stop the illegal trade in people smuggling and the exploitation of vulnerable people. Stop access to Australian waters and there is nothing for people smugglers to sell.
So, those numbers—the number of boats, 800 down to zero; the number of children in detention, from 8,000 to zero; the number of deaths at sea, reduced from 1,200 to zero—make me ask why Labor thought it was a good idea to open the door to this disgusting trade, to re-create the market where people smugglers could charge huge amounts of money to people to travel in unsafe boats, often deliberately disabling the safety of those boats to force a rescue—twelve hundred.
The medevac transfer bill—these amendments we are talking about—introduced by Dr Phelps last year and fully supported by Labor and the Greens, was flawed and dangerous. But they supported it, knowing the chaos caused between 2007 and 2013, knowing that winding back offshore processing would cause such chaos, knowing that there was such a scramble from the Gillard government to re-establish it. Senator Wong would have been in cabinet meetings about the impact of these unfettered illegal entries that were creating huge accommodation issues. There was overcrowding, and the tensions and safety risks this caused for detainees needed to be dealt with. There was the need to recommission old defence sites because the number of detainees was overwhelming all of the capacity at existing immigration detention centres. The medevac changes were stunningly naive and a massive overreach on the part of the former member for Wentworth.
The bill, or those changes, allowed for two doctors to override a ministerial decision about who could come to this country for medical treatment. But it isn't just about medical treatment. Two doctors can decide to transfer a person from offshore detention to Australia even if they're not diagnosed as ill. They could be transferred simply for assessment. And, with the recent ruling of the Federal Court, a person can be assessed without the doctors even seeing them. They can simply review the file from afar and approve the individual's transfer with just a signature. Once they're onshore, the minister has no way, no power, no right, to send them back to offshore processing—all of which shows what the changes were really about. They were really all about subverting the orderly immigration processes of this nation, all about dismantling offshore processing, all about loosening our borders.
Australian doctors train for at least a decade to provide medical expertise to Australians. As a profession, Australian doctors are highly skilled, and they provide us with world-class health care. At times they also provide advocacy aimed at improving that health care for all of us. Like most Australians, I happily visit doctors when I'm unwell, or when I or my family need treatment. I listen to them when it comes to immunisation. I listen to public health specialists who tell me to wash my hands when I go to the Ekka or told me not to eat soft cheese when I was pregnant. If I were to see a groundswell of concern from doctors about the Health Insurance Commission, I'd certainly go out and speak to doctors to understand their concerns, understand what's going on and advocate on their behalf. But for immigration advice I'm going to go to experts in that field. When I need to understand border protection, I look at the ministers who have successfully protected our borders. I look to the AFP, to ASIO and to Defence, the people who have the expert advice that can properly inform a meaningful policy solution for this country.
Not only was the ethos behind the bill flawed but the drafting has proven to be really loose. Already it's been watered down by the Federal Court decision I've mentioned. Had Dr Phelps looked to the security agencies for advice or gone to the Attorney-General to understand the ramifications of this wording and how the courts would interpret it, she mightn't have introduced the bill in the first place—unless undermining offshore processing was its very intent. Had Labor not been so intent on playing politics, they might have considered their experience last time they were in government. They might have said, 'Hey, remember what happened when we opened the borders last time? That was bad. That was expensive—$16 billion a year kind of expensive. Maybe not.' But they didn't. They played the cheap point and supported the medevac amendments, foolishly ignoring the reality of the good medical care that is available to detainees on Nauru and Manus Island.
You might not know, Madam Acting Deputy President, that there are 60 healthcare professionals on the island of Nauru in the detention centre there, half of whom specialise in mental health, providing services to refugees, nonrefugees and asylum seekers. This number includes general practitioners, psychiatrists, counsellors, mental health nurses and clinical health specialists. That means there's one healthcare worker for every seven people and one mental health professional for every 14 detainees. That is an incredible ratio. It's a ratio that is far better than many of my constituents experience in rural and regional Queensland. In the event that doctors on PNG and Nauru can't provide the medical treatment that's needed, transfers are assessed on a case-by-case basis, with the approval of the minister and with medical advice, and it has been done thousands of times over in the pre-medevac world.
The Greens and Labor like to pretend there's no medical care going on, but that's just not the fact. They like to pretend they've got a monopoly on compassion and that the coalition is just heartless when it comes to immigration, including illegal immigration. But, by stopping the boats, we've been able to increase our intake of refugees, many of whom have been sitting patiently in refugee camps for years, doing the right thing and following the proper processes. Often these are the people with the least means of all. It's because we stopped the boats and reduced the number of illegal arrivals that we've been able to increase our humanitarian migrant numbers by 27 per cent in the last five years.
Clearly, my sympathies and the sympathies of the Morrison government are with genuine refugees—those who do the right thing, apply for refugee status and then wait their turn to come to Australia. These changes weakened our borders. While this act stands, it is the perfect marketing tool for illegal people smugglers to get back in the trade. It is a flawed and dangerous act, and it must be repealed as a matter of urgency.
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (16:44): I rise to speak against this matter of public importance that was put up today, which contains a lot of mistruths about what the medevac legislation actually does. I've heard from some of the government senators today as they agree with the matter of public importance, somehow buying into the argument there's something deeply flawed with the medevac legislation. But in my contribution today I really want to start to put the truth on the table.
We've heard government senators in particular talk about immigration and border control. That's not what the medevac legislation is about. It is about dealing with sick people in a fair and appropriate way, in a way that I believe most Australians would want to be treated if they found themselves in a situation where there wasn't expert medical attention available to them. I've heard government senators say today that they take the advice of experts. Well, that medevac bill came from a groundswell of doctors—thousands of doctors across the country—GPs and specialists, who were very concerned about the health and wellbeing of refugees on Manus and Nauru. They're the experts, yet, when those experts speak, the Morrison government doesn't want to listen to them. Somehow it makes it about weakening our borders and so on.
Who could forget that earlier this year we saw the absolute farce, the political expediency of a government so desperate that they suddenly announced, at the cost of billions of dollars, the reopening of the Christmas Island detention centre. According to the government, if you believed the sort of nonsense they were pedalling, we were going to have thousands of people seeking asylum arriving at our borders as a result of the medevac legislation. Anyone who cares to look at that legislation knows that it applies only to the current cohort of refugees. It's doesn't have a future. It applies to the current cohort. It doesn't apply to anyone who arrives in Australia, whether by boat or by plane. It simply applies to those who currently need medical help. And there was a need for this legislation. All of us have heard the horror stories of children refusing to eat, of children not meeting milestones and of adults dying of horrific injuries that started as a very small issue. Had those issues been treated in Australia, they wouldn't have lost their lives. So it was actually needed.
Let's put some other truths on the table. The government controls this process at all times. It's not about two doctors in some beachside suburb filling out a form. The government maintains control. Let's put some more facts on the table. How many refugees have been transferred to Australia since that medevac legislation came into place? Just 70. That's right—just 70. And only seven have been medevaced to Australia against the government's wishes. We just heard from government senators about how we're weakening our borders and how we're opening the gates, but none of that is true. This legislation is about giving people who are sick the opportunity, if they can't be treated where they are, to be brought to Australia. And fair-minded Australians would support that sort of move.
As I said, we heard that the Christmas Island detention centre was reopened. We saw that disgraceful use of taxpayers' money when the Prime Minister flew right across Australia to Christmas Island. As a Western Australian senator, I know Christmas Island is part of the electorates in Western Australia. We saw the Prime Minister with an entourage of media go and take photos and look at all the medical equipment and all of that. Then what happened? Suddenly, quietly, we're not doing that anymore. That's been closed, as we always knew it would be. It suited the government's purpose at the time to try and scare people. This legislation is designed for a specific group of people—it enables them to get the health care they should so rightly receive—yet the government tried to paint it that there would be thousands and thousands of people coming to our shores seeking asylum. Well, that just hasn't happened. It simply hasn't happened.
What Labor want to do—and we supported the medevac legislation—is ensure that people who are sick get the medical treatment that they are entitled to receive. We took the advice of experts. We did talk to security people, which is why Labor also ensured that the minister—currently Mr Dutton—has the final discretion over medical transfers.
Why won't those opposite, the government, talk about the truth of this legislation? It won't, because that doesn't suit their narrative. They want to continue to scare Australians—to scare them about taxes, to scare them about people coming to our country uninvited. They want to scare them about weakened borders because it suits their narrative. As we saw earlier this week, the government really doesn't have a plan. It doesn't have a legislation agenda. We saw at 8.25 pm on Tuesday that suddenly we were doing the address-in-reply. Guess what? The government had no more business. So it suits them to continue with this scare narrative. Whatever it's about, they want to paint this scary picture or blame others, when all this legislation is seeking to do is take people who are sick and enable them, if two doctors—which the government has complete control over—sign off so they can be brought here for treatment.
The other thing that you never hear the government talk about is that the government itself has brought thousands of people here. There are already thousands of people in Australia right now—men, women and children—receiving treatment. They are refugees. Yet, under the medevac bill, we've had 70. On one side we've got 70 as part of this new legislation against the thousands the government have already brought here. But you won't hear them talk about that, because it doesn't suit the narrative of: 'Let's make people afraid and make people think this legislation is all about weakening borders. Let's make people think this legislation is all about immigration.' They're hell-bent on repealing it.
They've had Senator Roberts today fire the first shot for them, to test us out. Well, Labor's not backing away from this. We're not backing away from our support for the position that people who are sick need to be treated decently. That is our position. It has been our position from day one and will remain our position. Good on the government. They've tested the waters today. They've seen where their support is.
This medevac legislation is really about giving sick people a fair go. The government is failing the basic test of truthfulness with the sort of rhetoric and spin that it's putting out. We've seen a minister who routinely manipulates, misrepresents and mischaracterises what's really happening. For what? For political gain. We often hear in this place that we shouldn't play politics with this, that and the other thing. Well, it's not people on this side of the chamber who are playing politics here, it's the government. It's the government that would try to mislead Australians into thinking that there are thousands of people coming when there are 70. It's a government that only talks about weakening our borders, when this is about sick people getting the treatment they're entitled to.
We hear the government trying to put a position that this is all about immigration and about controlling who comes here and who doesn't, when the actual truth is that many more people came to be treated in Australia before this legislation was put in place than the 70 who have come since we've had the medevac bill. So we will continue to oppose the government's attempts to repeal this legislation because, at the end of the day, this is about sick people getting the treatment they deserve, signed off on by expert doctors.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:54): I must say, it boggles my mind there are people sitting in this parliament who want to repeal a law that allows sick and injured people to receive the medical attention they need. How full of hatred must your heart be to say someone should be denied the medical treatment that they desperately need, simply because they are a refugee or an asylum seeker? Australia has imprisoned these people, there is no other way around this, and providing them with medical care is our obligation.
I find it interesting that Pauline Hanson's One Nation party has brought this matter of public importance forward. Perhaps they are concerned that the Liberal Party is now even more callous than them in their continued persecution of asylum seekers, and they are seeking to play catch up. When One Nation talk about asylum seekers being a risk to border security we know what they really mean. Twenty years ago, they didn't want Asians in this country. Now their target is Muslims. We know why they don't want these asylum seekers to come to Australia. It's because they don't look like you. If the medevac bill is repealed, you will be taking away medical treatment from people, and that is simply unconscionable.
The government controls the lives of those in detention, but at the same time it pretends that they aren't its problem. The government says they aren't in a detention centre but they are locked up every night at 6 pm. Those opposite say they are free to leave whenever they want but won't let them take the offer of humanitarian resettlement from the New Zealand government and now want to take away their access to medical care in Australia. The government is playing games with their lives.
Mandatory detention is killing people; that's the stark reality. The number of suicide attempts and acts of self-harm since the election has reached 100. One young man set himself on fire inside his room. Australia's onshore detention system is killing people as well. Just this month, a 23-year-old man, who fled war-torn Afghanistan six years ago, died at a Melbourne immigration detention centre. We had him locked up for six long years. In September last year, a 22-year-old Iraqi man died in hospital after attempting to take his own life at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre in Western Australia. He had been transferred from Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney to Yongah Hill a few weeks ago, away from his family, including his two young children.
Jane McAdam and Fiona Chong recently penned an opinion piece called 'How did our treatment of refugees come to this?'. They said:
Imagine losing your eye in an assault and going slowly blind in the other, but having no medical treatment available. Or having your kneecap torn loose, causing intense pain and swelling, but being given nothing but paracetamol and a bandage. Or having a stroke, and needing to see a neurologist, psychiatrist and a cardiologist, but being offered aspirin. These things have happened to refugees held offshore, on Australia’s watch. How did it come to this?
Yes, indeed, how did it come to this? It came to this because of the bipartisan cruelty of both the Labor and Liberal governments. It came to this because they don't see asylum seekers as people just like us. It came to this because they choose fear over compassion. The authors go on to say:
In essence, Australia has sought to create conditions that are so bad that they come close to rivalling the life-threatening conditions from which people are fleeing in the first place. Currently, more than 800 people remain on Nauru and Manus Island, living in idle despair. Many have been there for almost six years, with no clear end in sight, even though most have been found to be refugees. More than 80 per cent suffer from depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Reading this and knowing what we all know, it is appalling that this government's major priority is to torment them even further. Enough is enough. We need to close this terrible chapter in our history and find some humanity in our hearts.
The PRESIDENT: In what I can attribute to the new senators, we are being a bit more productive and we are running ahead of time. I have been advised that the most appropriate thing to do is just pause for a few seconds to allow senators to enter the chamber before I call senators for their first speeches.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (16:59): It is approaching 5 pm and, pursuant to order, I will now call Senator Bragg to make his first speech. I ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (16:59): Mr President, I have a confession to make. I first discovered my love of Australia in Victoria. My upbringing in regional Victoria featured football, fishing and work in orchards, a cannery and a dairy. My interest in politics arose from growing up in a world where tax, trade, foreign investment and water policies all impacted people's lives. Later came tertiary study, work and—sometimes boring—research, which imbued the notion in me that Australia must be competitive to succeed.
Thanks to the Australian opportunity, my family is one of many that have enjoyed better lives than would have been possible on the other side of the world. My only Australian-born grandparent, James Paton, served his country in World War II. Thanks to him and the greatest generation, and a loving and stable environment at home, I always felt the opportunities were boundless.
My hometown of Shepparton remains one of Australia's great post-war experiments: a melting pot full of migrants from across the globe. Whilst Shepparton might be famous for the Furphy water cart, it ought to be famous for settling so many people harmoniously. In 2015, a debate to build a mosque in nearby Bendigo arose. There were already four mosques in Shepparton; the first built in 1960.
I am proud of the Australian opportunity, our freedoms and our institutions. I am proud of this house. I have come to this place to make a contribution to our country. I have come into the Australian Senate to represent the people of New South Wales, my adopted state and beloved home. It is a great honour to represent this state—the premier state, the largest state and home to the city where anyone from anywhere can make it.
The philosophy I will apply could be best described as 'Menzian liberalism'. The first federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia in 1946 was simple, clear and enduring. It read:
… an intelligent, free and liberal Australian democracy shall be maintained by:
(a) Parliament controlling the Executive and the Law controlling all;
… … …
(c) Freedom of speech, religion and association;
(d) Freedom of citizens to choose their own way of living and of life, subject to the rights of others;
(e) Protecting the people against exploitation;
(f) Looking primarily to the encouragement of individual initiative and enterprise as the dynamic force of
progress;
The shorter version is: a strong economy underpinned by markets and the rule of law paves the way for a fair society.
If the 20th century taught us anything, it taught us that centrally planned economies do not work. Socialism must be dead for all time in this nation. This was Menzies' view at the Canberra conference of 1944, which led to the creation of the Liberal Party. Menzies said of the great Australian Liberal revival: 'Governments do not provide enterprise; they provide controls. No sensible person can doubt that the revival of private enterprise is essential to post-war recovery and progress.'
Nothing has changed. Yet in recent times, there has been some deliberate confusion about the constituency of the Liberal Party. We do not stand for any business or any vested interest. As Menzies himself said, we stand for the 'Forgotten People', the great Australian middle class. They were, in his words, the:
… salary-earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, …
We support enterprise. We believe in markets. And we believe in some regulation of industry. We believe markets must serve the public interest. Central planning and fixing in the age of the internet is laughable, and should remind this house of the folly of indulging trade union demands to re-regulate our economy.
Our sister party in the United States has had an ongoing internal debate about the nature of regulation. During the coal strike of 1902, Theodore Roosevelt sensationally intervened not on the side of labour or capital but in the interest of the public. 'The national government represents … the interests of the public as a whole,' Roosevelt said. Just as Abraham Lincoln had seen himself as the 'steward of the people', Roosevelt established the 'square deal'—a new era of governance in the capitalist system. Roosevelt explained to a friend after the strike:
Now I believe in rich people who act squarely, and in labor unions which are managed with wisdom and justice; but when either employee or employer, laboring man or capitalist, goes wrong, I have to clinch him, and that is all there is to it.
Forty years later, Menzies was clear that vested interests would not dominate the Liberal Party, as had occurred in the prior United Australia Party. Menzies rightly pursued policies which angered the business groups of the day, such as the Chamber of Manufacturers, which hated his groundbreaking commerce agreement with Japan.
Of his guiding philosophy, Menzies embraced fairness. He said:
We have greatly aided social justice. … We have encouraged free enterprise … But we have insisted upon the performance of social and industrial obligations; we have shown that industrial progress is not to be based upon the poverty or despair of those who cannot compete.
This means we Liberals simultaneously support enterprise and state underwritten medical, health and social services, all financed by taxpaying Australians. We are not owned by anyone, unlike the Labor Party, whom the trade union movement literally own.
Vested interests can damage a nation if their agendas become the national agenda. Today's Labor trade union agenda is wrong for Australia. It opposes trade deals, tax cuts, flexibility for small business, and institutions designed to uphold the rule of law. This is a recipe for Australian isolationism. It may suit the trade unions, but it would undermine our living standards.
In coming years I want to spend my energies on two principal economic issues: taxation and superannuation. I believe in lower taxes. I want people to keep the money they've earned. The government has no money of its own. There is no public money; there is only taxpayers' money. The duty of government is to maintain the nation's obligations on social services, defence and so on through efficient tax collection and expenditure. I don't believe in class warfare. This recent election was a generational win for the nation's direction, as Australians endorsed aspiration and lower taxes, and rejected the class war.
The Morrison government campaigned for lower taxes. It was the centrepiece of our national effort. In New South Wales, this agenda was supported in seats we won or held—Lindsay in Sydney's outer west, Reid in Sydney's inner west and Wentworth in Sydney's east. I am proud to be one of 28 new coalition members and senators that have come into this place under the outstanding leadership of Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The class of 2019 is dynamic, youthful and diverse. It is another revival of Australian liberalism.
The Prime Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Finance have maintained our great party's fidelity to the Menzies platform of 1946. Structurally addressing bracket creep is a wonderful step forward for the forgotten people's grandchildren—the quiet Australians.
A baby having begun crying in the gallery—
Senator BRAGG: Not my son, obviously! Our reform means that people earning between $40,000 and $200,000 will keep the money they earn for working an extra shift. After all, it is their money, not Canberra's.
Taxation policy can make or break investment choices in an increasingly global race for people and capital. The tax system must encourage work, promote innovation and attract know how. Complacency has become a national problem. We Australians are experiencing something new and unique. No nation has ever experienced 28 years of economic growth on a consecutive basis. Australia's direct taxes on people and companies are still too high by international standards. We ought to look again at reducing the direct tax burden on workers and enterprise. Inevitably, we must talk to the states about achieving a meaningful tax-mix switch that boosts efficiency and competitiveness whilst maintaining fairness.
I am in no doubt that Australia needs the world more than the world needs Australia. We have relied upon foreign money and foreign people since the First Fleet. Foreign investment in private enterprise is often the only game in many Australian towns. Look at Whyalla in South Australia and look at Northern Tasmania. Foreign investment has kept those communities alive. Yet, foreign investment is often discussed in the negative. It has always been controversial. First the British, then the Americans, then the Japanese and now the Chinese. Our tax system and broader policy settings must encourage foreign investment on a non-discriminatory basis. This nation will never have enough domestic capital to meet our high ambitions. The argument that we should close down foreign investment is akin to raising the tariff walls. We cannot close ourselves off from the world, and we cannot have our own facts.
Almost one-quarter of our economy is exports, around double the United States. We simply cannot afford to take protectionist risks that may be available to our great friend across the Pacific Ocean. We must maintain a liberal approach to trade and foreign investment whilst ensuring we do all the appropriate due diligence, and reserve the right to legislate to protect Australia's security, economic and social interests. This parliament will always be sovereign. Former trade minister and National Farmers Federation head Andrew Robb has regularly reminded me: 'Andrew, I've never once seen a farm lift off and fly away from Australia.'
Let me now turn to superannuation. After working as an internal auditor at Ernst & Young, I spent almost eight years working in and around superannuation. This has made me a dinner party invitee of choice! Superannuation has made the unions, banks and insurers richer than ever. According to the Grattan Institute, Australians spend $23 billion on energy costs each year, but we spend $30 billion on super fees. Super is a classic case of vested interests triumphing over the national interest. The fees are too high, there is not enough competition and there is insufficient transparency.
Compulsory superannuation is almost 30 years old. Super is now almost twice the size of the economy and the capitalisation of the securities exchange. We have the fourth-largest private pension pool in the world with only 25 million people. It remains a strange but huge experiment. The Centre for Independent Studies says one of the preconditions necessary to justify forced saving is that 'undersaving for retirement will result in serious harm, including serious levels of old age poverty'. Super fails at the first gate as the age pension underwrites Australians against old age poverty. Grattan Institute modelling shows super tax breaks will not pay for reduced pension outlays until the 22nd century, if at all!
So what does this money do? Most of the funds invest in the same index-hugging way. The super industry contains layer upon layer of intermediation, with the same request from government: higher and higher mandatory contributions. As lawmakers, our duty is to focus on the public interest. I do not believe this system is working for Australians. Certainly the case has not been made for ever bigger super. I would change direction. Super should be made voluntary for Australians earning under $50,000. Taxpayers could simply tick a box to get a refund when filing an annual tax return. I commissioned modelling from Rice Warner actuaries, which estimates a saving to government of $1.8 billion in the first year alone.
Super is making home ownership so much harder for lower income Australians. The CIS found that the average deposit for a first home has doubled between 2000 and 2015. Since super started in 1992, every single age group has experienced lower levels of home ownership. Two answers must be provided, in my view, if we are to keep super as it is today: (1) will more super reduce future pension costs to government and, if so, by how much; and (2) how much better would retirement standards be if we had more super? The last Intergenerational Report showed around 80 per cent of people would take a public pension in 2055. That is not good enough after 70 years of compulsory superannuation. Unless the next edition favourably answers these questions, I would be inclined to make the whole scheme voluntary.
The down payment from a strong economy should be a fair society. In 2017, I took on a most polarising issue in my party—same-sex marriage—as national director of the Liberals and Nationals for Yes. I suspected this four-month assignment would be defining: either I'd be one of many people who delivered more fairness and more freedom, or I'd be a hopeless campaigner who picked a toxic issue inside my party. In the end, 71 of 76 coalition seats voted yes.
I am honoured to now stand in the Australian Senate, where my friend Senator Dean Smith introduced his Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Working to give people more rights in the marriage campaign has made me more proud than anything else I have done. Being thanked by total strangers is an amazing feeling. Being thanked by my own sister is an amazing feeling. Same-sex marriage was about people's lives and their rights. It was also about the type of country we want to live in. Long may we remember the credo 'live and let live'.
I am worried that our country has not been able to reconcile with Indigenous Australians. As Noel Pearson has reminded me: 'Andrew, this is my country too'. It is time for us to complete this task. Pearson offers a way of thinking about Australia that I love. His declaration of recognition presents Australia as a unified nation drawing on three great heritages: the Indigenous as First Peoples, the British as creators of the institutions which underpin the nation and the multicultural gift that has enriched us all. The Constitution does a great job of securing these institutions. That's why I'm a constitutional conservative. I regard the Constitution as an incredibly successful document. But I am also a supporter of constitutional recognition.
The latest chapter in this long journey is the Uluru statement. It offers a challenge to our country. The Uluru statement says, 'We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country.' It imagines a Constitution where Indigenous Australians are guaranteed a say on laws made under the races and territories powers which affect them. Uluru asks legislators to consult Indigenous people on the laws which are relevant to them. This is a good idea. This is a fair idea.
But I would not support constitutional recognition at any price. I offer five principles if we are to succeed. Any proposal must (1) capture broad support of the Indigenous community; (2) focus on community level improvements; (3) maintain the supremacy of parliament; (4) maintain the value of equality; and (5) strengthen national unity. I know my colleagues share strong feelings about this. Constitutional recognition is both desirable and achievable if the design work reflects these principles.
A workable framework was outlined by John Howard's chief justice Murray Gleeson in a recent address for Uphold & Recognise—the brainchild of the brilliant Damien Freeman and my colleague Julian Leeser MP. In Gleeson's words:
What is proposed is a voice to Parliament, not a voice in Parliament.
… … …
It has the merit that it is substantive, and not merely ornamental.
Recognition should also be a bottom-up process. As the Governor-General said in the opening of this parliament, we should 'develop ground-up governance models for enhanced, inclusive and local decision-making on issues impacting the lives of Indigenous Australians'. This must be a unifying project, because the Constitution belongs to all Australians. It must also be a bipartisan project, and I acknowledge the critical role non-government Indigenous senators will play in the years ahead. The first Indigenous person to serve as Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, said just a few weeks ago: 'Indigenous Australians want to be recognised on the birth certificate of our nation because we weren't there when it was written but we were ensconced in it in two sections, 51(xxvi) and 127.' I will walk with Indigenous Australians on this journey.
A First Nations voice would not be a third chamber. It would not have the standing, scope or power of the Senate or the House of Representatives. Further, the campaign that 'race has no place' in the Constitution may sound good, but it is a campaign that should have been run in the 1890s as we crossed that Rubicon in 1901. Yes, our Constitution already contains race in several places. It has a history which has been both good and bad. Today, the race power provides the constitutional authority for the Native Title Act. Although some would extend native title rights and others would wind them back, everyone agrees that this parliament should retain this authority and power.
The issue of proper recognition in the Constitution will not go away—and it shouldn't. If recognition fails, more radical concepts could be proposed, such as reserved seats for First Peoples, as already exist in New Zealand and the US state of Maine, or we could face a bill of rights, which would be a terrible transfer of power from elected persons to unelected judges.
We want all Australians to be proud of our great nation. All Australians will always be equal, but we cannot have Indigenous people feel estranged in the land of their ancestors. Almost every comparable nation has landed some form of legal recognition of First Peoples. We should not wait any longer.
The Liberal Party is used to opening the batting on difficult issues. We made the first moves to abolish White Australia, we opened trade with Japan in 1957 and we delivered the Indigenous referendum in 1967. We are the party of Senator Neville Bonner.
We Liberals are good at big changes because we can take the forgotten people or the quiet Australians on the journey. As one of my political heroes, John Howard, said:
Australian Liberalism has always been evolving and developing. It always will be. We are constantly relating Liberalism's enduring values to the circumstances of our own time enduring values such as the commitment to enhance freedom, choice and competition, to encourage personal achievement, and to promote fairness and a genuine sense of community in Australian society.
I look forward to writing the next chapter in the rich history of Australian Liberalism.
I want to thank a group of people who have sustained me—and I'm sure this has been a difficult mission at times. I thank my parents, Colin and Ann Bragg, for making every opportunity possible. I thank my wonderful and brilliant wife, Melanie, and our children, Sophia and James. We all do this for our children. I thank my extended family, represented by Hamish and Anna Bragg, and good friends and colleagues, including my best man, David Bold.
I thank the Liberal Party for this opportunity. I owe the party a great debt. There are so many people in the New South Wales division who believed in me. I thank you all.
Most importantly, I thank the people of New South Wales for their trust and confidence. I am certain that this place can work harder and better for the people that put us here. I pledge to work with my fellow patriots for all Australians. Thank you.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (17:26): Order! Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Ciccone to make his first speech. I ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:27): As I stand in this chamber to make my first speech, I wish to pay my respects to First Nations people and to their elders past, present and emerging. I want to acknowledge Senators Dodson, McCarthy and Lambie, as well as colleagues in the other place, Linda Burney and Ken Wyatt, for their ongoing leadership on justice for First Nations people. I also pay tribute to the great elder, artist and social justice advocate from my home state of Victoria, William Barak. Barak was a highly respected man and leader, and one of the forerunners of reconciliation.
That journey to reconciliation continues, and today I join with the ever-growing gathering of voices calling for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Together we must seek a pathway to treaty so that we may move forward as a nation and to allow us to close the gap, to address all the injustices that First Nations people continue to face in their lives.
The traditions of storytelling, community and family history are central to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life and spirituality. While I can never claim to fully know those traditions, I feel they are amongst the many things that we all hold dear. I know that in my own life the stories of grandparents, cousins and close family friends, of shared history, are the things that I feel connected to and that, in turn, connect me to a community. In particular, my parents' story, their life together, has inspired me and shaped me; a story I reflect on often and which I wish to share today.
On a balmy Melbourne night in the late 1970s, a young woman attended a dinner dance at the San Remo Ballroom in Carlton. For years, the San Remo Ballroom was central to the social lives of many Italian migrants and their families. This young woman was in her late 20s. She had migrated to Melbourne from the southern Italian city of Bari with her parents, brother and sisters. They left Italy in 1968 seeking opportunity, the chance at a better life for themselves and for their children to come. That night, a man in his early 30s was also at the San Remo Ballroom. Like the young woman, he had come to Australia from the south of Italy, from a country town called Conza della Campania, in 1967. His sister had come over some years earlier and convinced him that Australia was a great place where he would get a fair go and a real chance to make a good life.
Paola and Amato met that night, and soon they fell in love. They were married in 1980, and for 2½ decades were utterly devoted to one another and to their two sons, my younger brother, Frank, and me. Together, we lived in Huntingdale, a working-class suburb of Melbourne's south east. We were a typical Italian-Australian family living out a very typical story. We had a modest but comfortable home, ready at a moment to welcome visitors. It was a house that was filled with food, family and love.
The story of my parents and that of my upbringing is one that is shared by millions of Australians. About one-third of us were born overseas, and around half of our population are the children and grandchildren of migrants. I proudly count myself in their number. More than 118 years since Federation, our nation has come a long way to become the vibrant, more inclusive multicultural country we are today. This would not have been possible without the social changes brought about by the work of previous governments, which has fostered greater recognition of the diverse contributions that all people make to Australia's culture.
My parents, neither of whom had the chance to complete their secondary years, eagerly encouraged and supported my brother and I throughout our studies. It was with their guidance and through our firsthand experience that we came to understand the impact that great schools and great teachers can have on young people. We both had the great fortune to attend our local Catholic schools—first, Christ Our Holy Redeemer in Oakleigh East, and later, Salesian College in Chadstone. It was at Salesian where two teachers noticed my interest in politics and encouraged me to get involved and join a political party. My legal studies teacher, Mr Donohue, encouraged me to join the Young Liberals, whilst my social education teacher, Mr Sestito, advocated for Labor. It's fair to say you know which side I'm on.
The opportunities we've had are the fruit of my parents' Australian dream and their hard work. We were taught that society is based on fairness, equality and the dignity of the individual, living in community, nurtured by family, for mutual benefit and attainment of the common good. As my parents wanted it for me, so I am now driven to make sure quality education is available to every child, no matter their socioeconomic status, from the earliest moments of their lives to their further education after school and beyond.
Not only did my parents share with me the need for a good education to get ahead; they also showed me the value of a hard day's work, and that with a hard day's work must come a fair day's pay, because it's with a fair day's pay that a family can build a home and a future. That's what my parents did, and it's what I want to work towards so that all Australians can find this security. I guess you could say it's not surprising, with those values, I ended up working for a union. As an official for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association in Victoria, I represented some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. Together, we worked hard to protect conditions such as leave, penalty rates and superannuation, and ensure that those who had suffered wage theft were able to get the justice they deserved.
For example: I represented workers at 7-Eleven who were subject to a systematic pattern of exploitation, driven primarily by a severe power imbalance in the relationship between a worker and an employer. These workers were paid between $8 and $10 an hour, and in one instance I met a young foreign student who was making as little as $5 an hour. They came to Australia to get an education and improve their future, but, instead, they were too scared to speak up or not aware of their workplace rights. I can't fathom the fear these workers would have felt, studying and struggling to make ends meet and feeling powerless in the face of employers determined to rip them off, because their bosses had all the power and they had none.
I firmly believe whistleblower protections need to cover temporary visa workers. We need to make franchisors responsible for the underpayment of employee wages if franchisees do not rectify underpayments. We need to increase the penalties for wage theft and make it easier to rectify the nonpayment and underpayment of superannuation.
But our laws don't just need to adapt to catch the rule breakers; they need to adapt to the changing nature of work itself. Gone are the days of my grandfather, who worked for General Motors Holden in Fisherman's Bend his whole life. Gone, even, are the days of my father, a life member of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union for over 46 years. He worked most of his life in manufacturing. All across the economy, many traditional jobs are disappearing. Meanwhile, the largely unregulated gig economy is growing, leaving many workers vulnerable and unsupported.
Recent research shows that nearly half of workers on a digital platform do not know what they earn per hour. While these workers might earn a quick dollar, over the long term they are left without superannuation, insurance cover for workplace injuries and the adequate leave and entitlements that come with being covered by an award or enterprise agreement. These workers deserve the protection of the basic employment laws that we in the labour movement have fought so hard to establish, and it is our responsibility in this place to deliver them for those people.
We have the ability to take up this challenge. Just walking into this place as an elected representative, I am reminded of the impact that the work that we do here can have on our society. It was 75 years ago in this chamber, albeit meeting in the old place, where debate was had on John Curtin's proposed Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Bill. Before its introduction, there existed no national scheme that provided welfare to those who were without work, and its passage by this house represented one of the final pieces of a comprehensive welfare system that had been carefully woven together by successive Labor governments since federation.
Labor understood then, as it does now, not just the importance of decent and secure work but also of ensuring that those in search of it should be able to live lives of dignity. What was in 1944 known as the 'unemployment benefit' is today called Newstart, and roughly 700,000 Australians rely on these payments to help make ends meet while they search for a job. Those familiar with the scheme, however, will tell you that making ends meet on Newstart is near impossible. Today, the single largest group, one in four people on Newstart, are over the age of 55. The shocking truth is that with no increase in real terms to the rate paid since the Keating government, Newstart has actually declined relative to other payments, such as the age pension.
While this parliament has a proud record of establishing the safety net that exists to protect Australians doing it tough, in this space we can and we should do more. It cannot be accepted that in Australia, the best country in the world, we have the second highest rate of poverty among the unemployed in the OECD nor can we allow the social security system that we have worked so hard to build to be used to punish those who are in the most need of a helping hand. A meaningful and immediate increase to Newstart is an important step that we must all embrace in this place, but it cannot by any means be our last. To ensure the hardships that exist now aren't able to recur, we need to work together to create a framework where changes to these and other elements of our social security system are regularly assessed.
As difficult as it is to make ends meet on Newstart, there are some in our community who struggle just as hard and with even less support. When walking through the streets of Melbourne or any major city in Australia one cannot help but see the growing number of those who are forced to make shelter on our streets. Homelessness can often be confronting, and it is an issue that we need to address in this place. Homelessness is a powerful and inescapable example of the kind of economic and social disadvantage that some would rather forget exists in our community. Sadly, homelessness rates are growing significantly. The most recent census recorded 116,000 people as being homeless. In my home state of Victoria, the number was almost 25,000.
The causes of homelessness are many and varied. A shortage of affordable housing is certainly a large part of the problem but so too is the scourge of family violence, drug and alcohol addiction, our nation's growing mental health crisis, the increased prevalence of insecure work and stubbornly poor wages growth. The overwhelming majority of Australians who are seeking assistance for homelessness rely on a Centrelink payment, proof that, more often than not, it is impossible to make ends meet on benefits. No person should have to spend a cold winter's night sleeping rough on the street nor should they have to live from the back seat of their car or on the sofa of a friend.
Its manifest complexity requires a comprehensive response. We have the power in this place to address this issue. In our community, there are multitudes of organisations that already do more than their fair share to help out, be they local governments, not-for-profits or local churches and other faith based groups. During the last parliament, 93 per cent of government bills passed received bipartisan support, a clear sign that this parliament can come together and work as one to make a positive change. Too many people are counting on us, and we cannot let them down.
All of us come into contact with the healthcare system at some stage in our lives. In September 2017, my wife, Dimity Paul, was diagnosed with breast cancer. She has the BRCA gene, and thanks to years of research and women like my mother-in-law, who has survived three primary breast cancers and who was prepared to be tested for this mutation, she is thriving and well today. Dimity was screened regularly, but it was estimated that her risk would rise later in her 30s, when we had hoped to start a family. However, it was at one of her yearly MRIs that they detected a less than one centimetre stage three cancer. It had already spread to her lymph nodes. It is not dramatic to say that without knowing her genetic status and having regular testing, my wife may not be here today.
These past two years have been an emotional whirlwind of surgeries, chemotherapy, drug trials, doctor visits, physiotherapy, tests and scans. She had her last surgery during the recent federal election. Thankfully, we've been surrounded by family and friends throughout this time. Our home has, at times, resembled a florist. The fridge and freezer have been stocked with meals, and we've been kept in good spirits by a steady stream of visitors, who we're so lucky to have in our lives.
We have been extraordinarily grateful to the team at Melbourne's Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre for the care and advice my wife has received. Her experience stands in stark contrast to my mother's. We could say my wife and I were lucky that her cancer was found and treated early. And we are lucky, of course. But it's not all down to luck. It's also down to the good policy and wise decisions that created a framework to identify risk and early incidence of cancer. Early diagnosis is a key to survival, and I'm committed to working with everyone in this place to extend preventative health measures and screening.
I am the 100th person to have taken the oath to represent the people of Victoria in the Senate. I was honoured to receive the support of my party to sit in this chamber earlier this year following the retirement of former senator Jacinta Collins, who I had the pleasure of working for, and who has dedicated herself to serving the community for over twenty years. Like her, I am committed to shining a light on the issues that affect working Australians, to putting social justice issues front and centre of the national conversation, and to working to create a fairer Australia. While senators may differ in policies and approach, all who have the privilege to serve here want the best for Australia and its people.
As a young person, I was inspired to join a movement that believes in working together to achieve shared goals for our community, that puts ideas into action and that places social and economic justice for all, and democracy, at the centre of policy. I joined the Clayton Branch of the ALP in July 2000, at a time when Steve Bracks' forward-thinking vision was putting Victoria back on track and when Kim Beazley was making the case for an Australia that is skilled and tolerant and confident and free to make its own way in the modern world. I came to understand that cooperation between public and private sectors in implementing solutions to complex economic, social and environmental challenges is imperative. That is why I am proud to have worked in the labour movement and to be an ALP member, both of which continue to stand for working Australians and their interests.
I want to thank my family and many friends here today and those watching from work or home who have helped me realise this great honour of becoming a senator. I am and always will be grateful to my father for being a wonderful, supportive presence in my life for almost 36 years. My brother Frank and sister-in-law Amelia—I could not have asked for the great support that you have provided me, and I want to acknowledge your presence here today. I also want to acknowledge my aunts, uncles and cousins, and I thank you all for playing such an important part in my life. My mother-in-law Veida and sister-in-law Fran, who are here today—I'd like to thank you both for sharing in the moment today, and the rest of the family, for the robust political conversations and discussions that we've had over many years.
Victorian secretary and National President of the SDA Union, Michael Donovan—thank you for all the support and guidance that you have provided me over the last 11½ years. I am forever grateful. To my other SDA colleagues—the national secretary, Gerard Dwyer; the Victorian assistant secretary, Trish Connelly; Antony Burke; Mauro Moretta; John McCracken; Michael Galea; Dean D'Angelo and the many current and former officials, organisers and admin staff, including Darrel Schumacher, who recently passed away and to whom I paid tribute in my adjournment speech last night—I thank you all for your friendship over the last six years at the SDA.
I want to thank the many branch members who I have known over the last 19 years, in particular Leone and Ray Hewes, and Antonio Rossi—the first people I met in the Labor Party—and my dedicated and loyal team of staff and volunteers who have joined me on this journey since 6 March. To Alys, Bastian, Laura, Liana, James, John, Nathan, Peter, Sue, Peachy and Tony: I thank you all for your support. I thank my federal and state Labor colleagues, particularly Senator Farrell and Daniel Mulino MHR, and their partners Nimfa and Sarah. I thank my many friends, including those who have made time in their very busy schedules to come to Parliament House and sit in the gallery today. Special mention must go to: Manny, Christabelle, Gary, Xavier, Natalie, Sacha, Lucien, Enver, Pelin, Hasan, Sarah, Tully, Josh, Mark, Cam, Emily, Jess, Stuart, Tim, Priya, Anton, Ella, Dev, Sedar—I am finishing up very soon, Mr President!—Sam, Michael, Hovig, and of course Young Labor Unity. I couldn't have asked for a more reliable and supportive group of individuals, and I look forward to enjoying our friendship for many years ahead.
People who know me very well know that I have quite a few loves in my life: the Collingwood Football Club—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator CICCONE: hear hear!—the Australian Labor Party; my dog Bismarck, who turns four tomorrow and sends his apologies for not being able to make it today; and of course my wife, Dimity. And I should stress, Mr President, not in that order! I was sworn into this place on our wedding bible, in case you hadn't noticed, and I think Ecclesiastes 4:12 sums up our partnership. It says:
Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Dimity is a woman of remarkable talent, and is immensely capable. She is my greatest champion, my dearest friend, my companion and my love. I first met her back in 2010. We formed a friendship very quickly, thanks to our friend James. It's not hard to imagine why, given we follow the same football club—for those who don't remember, it was a great year for Collingwood, having two grand finals. We also share a passion for politics, good food and Farrell wine—the vintage Farrell wine!
Let me mark this day by reflecting on some handwritten words given to me by Leone Hewes:
Always look at a challenge not in terms of success or failure but a test of character. Trust yourself—be open and straight; look everyone in the eye and say yes or no with conviction and honesty. Trust the 'gut instinct' which exists within each of us and dare to have a go. Seize the day. Never look back in anger but never forget where you came from. Look for the 'Light on the Hill' and never underestimate the power of one to make a difference.
I finish as I started, recognising the First Nations people and acknowledging them for the land where this place of important decision-making stands. May all of us in this place strive together to make this nation a better, fairer place for all Australians. I thank the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Order! I know that there is a desire for the House of Representatives to sit in the Senate, but I am going to have to call some order. I was warned if we let you sneak in, you might want to stay. I'll ignore that interjection, thank you, Robbie!
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Motion to take note of document no. 1 moved by Senator Urquhart. Consideration to resume on Thursday at general business.
COMMITTEES
Scrutiny of Bills Committee
Scrutiny Digest
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:01): I present Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2019 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Regulations and Ordinances Committee
Delegated Legislation Monitor
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (18:01): I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor 3 of 2019 of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
As the recently elected Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 3 of 2019.
This committee is one of the Senate's oldest and most respected standing committees. It performs the important role of examining all disallowable legislative instruments made under the authority of acts of the parliament.
The committee engages in the technical scrutiny of delegated legislation in accordance with the scrutiny principles set out in Senate standing order 23. It does not assess the policy merits of delegated legislation. Due to this approach, the committee has a strong and longstanding commitment to non-partisanship.
In June this year, the committee tabled the report of its inquiry into parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. In that report, the committee emphasised the need to ensure that senators understand the committee's role, and the value of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation.
The committee has made a number of changes to its work practices to promote these objectives.
For example, the committee has resolved that the chair will make a statement in this chamber to accompany the tabling of the Delegated Legislation Monitor, to further highlight the committee's most significant scrutiny concerns to the Senate.
The committee has also resolved to place 'protective' notices of motions to disallow the instruments discussed in chapter 1 of the Delegated Legislation Monitor. Chapter 1 details the committee's most significant and unresolved scrutiny concerns.
The protective notices of motions to disallow will give the Senate additional time to properly consider the committee's outstanding concerns.
The committee hopes that these initiatives, and others, will enhance senators' understanding and appreciation of the importance of parliamentary oversight and control of delegated legislation.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 3 of 2019 to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (18:04): I present the government's response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
The document was not available at the time of publishing.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (18:05): by leave—I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 23 July 2019 asked by Senator Wong relating to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answer read as follows—
The document was not available at the time of publishing.
COMMITTEES
Membership
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (18:05): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (18:05): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Effectiveness of the Australian Government's Northern Australia agenda—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators McDonald and Dean Smith
Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Bragg, Brockman, Chandler, Davey, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Hughes, McGrath, McMahon, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Sinodinos, Stoker and Van
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating members [for the purposes of the 2019 election]: Senators Abetz, Antic, Bragg, Brockman, Chandler, Davey, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Hughes, McDonald, McMahon, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Sinodinos, Dean Smith, Stoker and Van
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiry into the disclosure and reporting of sensitive and classified information
Participating member: Senator Rice
Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Brockman and Davey
Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Bragg, Chandler, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Hughes, McDonald, McGrath, McMahon, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Sinodinos, Dean Smith, Stoker and Van
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Askew, Bragg, Brockman, Chandler, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Hughes, McDonald, McGrath, McMahon, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Sinodinos, Dean Smith, Stoker and Van
Question agreed to.
Appointment
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (18:06): The President has received messages from the House of Representatives informing the Senate of the appointment of members to joint committees.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (18:06): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (18:07): I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
COUNTER-TERRORISM (TEMPORARY EXCLUSION ORDERS) BILL 2019
The Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 is an important addition to the Government's efforts to further strengthen Australia's national security laws and counter-terrorism framework.
Keeping Australian communities safe from those who seek to do us harm is, and will continue to be, the Australian Government's number one priority. This Bill supports the Government's commitment to keeping Australians safe. The Bill introduced a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) scheme to delay Australians of counter-terrorism interest from re-entering Australia, until appropriate protections are in place.
Since 2012, around 230 Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with or support extremist groups involved in conflict. Around 80 are still active in conflict zones.
The advice of Australia's National Security Agencies is that many Australians of counter-terrorism concern, who travelled to Iraq and Syria to engage in that conflict, are likely to seek to return to Australia in the very near future. This Bill will ensure that law enforcement agencies can effectively manage these returns in a way which will reduce the threat to the Australian community.
There will be two components to the TEO scheme.
First, an Australian of national security concern who is overseas may be subject to a TEO prohibiting them from returning to Australia for up to two years. The Bill does not permanently prohibit entry into Australia, and a person will be entitled to a return permit if they apply.
A Temporary Exclusion Order could be made where the Minister suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the order would substantially assist in preventing terrorism-related activities. A Temporary Exclusion Order could also be made by the Minister where ASIO assesses the person to be a risk to security for reasons related to politically motivated violence.
The Bill establishes a framework for a reviewing authority to provide independent oversight of the Minister's decision to make a TEO before it comes into force.
An exception to this review process is provided for in the Bill to address urgent circumstances. In such cases, the TEO would come into force immediately pending review, which must be undertaken as soon as reasonably practicable.
The reviewing authority will be appointed by the Attorney-General. Former judges or serving senior Administrative Appeals Tribunal members may be appointed to the role.
If the reviewing authority determines that the Minister's decision was not lawful, the TEO is taken to have never been made. All TEOs will be subject to review, and the reviewing authority will have access to all the information that was before the Minister, except to the extent that the disclosure of such information is not in the public interest. This will protect sensitive sources and capabilities. It will, however, be open to the reviewing authority to overturn the decision to make a TEO if insufficient information to support the making of the exclusion order is provided.
Review of the Minister's decision is based on Australian administrative law principles relating to the legality of the decision. This is similar to the United Kingdom's TEO scheme. Judicial review will also be available through the Federal Court or High Court.
A TEO would not be able to be made against a person who is younger than 14 years of age, and for persons aged between 14 and 17, it will be a requirement for the Minister to have regard to the best interests of the minor as a primary consideration.
The second component of the TEO scheme - a return permit - will mitigate risks to the community following the return to Australia of persons who were subject to a TEO.
The Bill specifies the Minister must issue a return permit within a reasonable period, if a person applies, or if a person is being deported or extradited to Australia.
The Bill also provides that a return permit may specify conditions which the person must comply with once in Australia. The conditions would be tailored to the individual, with the intention of assisting law enforcement and security agencies to appropriately manage their risk to the Australian community.
Conditions that may be imposed include requirements that the person surrenders their Australian passport, or that they notify authorities if they change their residential address.
Conditions would only be imposed where considered necessary for the purpose of preventing terrorism-related activities.
The Bill was first introduced into Parliament on 21 February 2019, and referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry.
The Government has reviewed the Committee's report from this inquiry, and has substantially incorporated the Committee's recommendations into the Bill I introduce today. I thank the Committee for its work.
In conclusion, this Bill addresses the significant risks which Australia faces from returning foreign fighters.
It is essential that Australian authorities have the capacity to manage the risks of persons returning to Australia from foreign conflict zones.
The Temporary Exclusion Order scheme being introduced under this Bill is based on a scheme which has been successfully operating in the United Kingdom. It is targeted and specific to individuals who are a national security risk to the community. Moreover, it is a proportional response to the threats we face, while ensuring appropriate safeguards and accountability.
The Government has been clear that our policy is to deal with foreign terrorist fighters as far from our shores as possible.
The Bill will ensure that if an Australian of counter-terrorism concern does return to Australia, it is with adequate forewarning and into the waiting hands of authorities.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
COUNTER-TERRORISM (TEMPORARY EXCLUSION ORDERS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019
I am pleased to introduce the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. These measures are consequential to the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019, which will provide greater control over returning Australians of counter-terrorism interest, including foreign fighters.
The Bill will introduce additional accountability and transparency measures in the Temporary Exclusion Orders scheme (TEO scheme). These measures implement recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its review of the TEO scheme.
First, the Bill will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide that it is a function of the Committee to monitor and review the exercise of powers under the TEO scheme. The Committee is also required to review, by three years after the date of commencement, the operation and effectiveness of the TEO scheme.
Second, the Bill amends the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 to enable the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the operation, effectiveness, and implications of the TEO scheme on his or her own initiative.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (18:07): I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019. I say from the outset that Labor has always, always supported the intent of the temporary exclusion orders scheme. This is an appropriate scheme to manage and control the return of Australian citizens who have gone overseas and may have fought as foreign fighters.
Successfully managing the return of foreign fighters is critical to ensure the safety and security of the Australian community. It was an issue that we, as developed, democratic nations, were always going to be faced with, particularly as the so-called caliphate collapsed. No country can pretend that the problem of foreign fighters does not exist. Each country must accept responsibility for their citizens, and the complexities associated with such a task is what this legislation seeks to address. This counter-terrorism bill introduces a temporary exclusion orders scheme which would enable authorities to delay and control the return and re-entry of Australians of counter-terrorism interest into Australia until appropriate protections are in place, and enable the Minister for Home Affairs to impose conditions on such individuals once they have returned to Australia, to manage the risk that they may pose—for example, reporting requirements. Again, Labor has always supported the intent of this scheme and we have always sought to see a scheme implemented as this legislation intends.
The Morrison government first announced they would create a temporary exclusion orders scheme on 22 November 2018. Some three months later, the Minister for Home Affairs introduced legislation into the last parliament on 21 February 2019.
The government then agreed to refer the legislation to the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, commonly known as the PJCIS. The government agreed to refer this bill to the PJCIS, knowing full well that it would be making recommendations on ways to amend their own legislation. This is an important point: people can often assume that legislation, particularly national security legislation, automatically gets referred to committees. But more often than not—and as is always the case with the PJCIS—the government must agree both to the legislation being referred and to the time line in which the inquiry takes place.
I note that the government, just today, has been debating legislation in the other place to repeal medevac. At the same time, they have agreed to an inquiry into the medevac bill. That inquiry does not report until October. The laws to repeal medevac won't be able to be debated in this chamber until November at the earliest. I make this point to illustrate that this is how parliament operates: to interrogate laws and scrutinise them; to make recommendations; and, ultimately, to amend legislation to improve it.
This is particularly the case with the bipartisan PJCIS. It has operated in some fashion like this since 1986, to ensure that Australia's national security laws are fit for purpose, robust and legal and constitutionally valid. Most importantly, today the Liberal-dominated committee, chaired by Liberal MP Andrew Hastie, works to ensure that our national security laws work. The bipartisan PJCIS made 18 substantive recommendations to the temporary exclusion orders legislation. I will come to these recommendations and the government's response shortly. But firstly I would like to address the need for the temporary exclusion order scheme.
In early May, the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said that the United States had an expectation:
… that every country will work to take back their foreign fighters and continue to hold those foreign fighters, …
Despite what some would say have been many years of warning signs that the thousands of foreign fighters would need to return home at some stage, Mr Pompeo made this plea after too few countries had the right plans in place. He went on to say that it was 'essential' for every country to do its part. Unfortunately, this process of repatriation and serving justice will not be easy for Australia or other like-minded countries. This is especially the case when we consider determining who exactly is a foreign fighter and what the crimes are that they have committed.
Those who took up arms on the front line in Syria and Iraq may be easily classified, but a successful prosecution relies on sound evidence. And what do we make of the women and children who either went overseas voluntarily or were taken against their will into the so-called caliphate? Where do we draw the line between fighter and victim? And can they be both? It's important to note that children under the age of 14 make up a significant portion of the 80 Australians the government says are overseas in conflict zones. These 80 people are people that the government says TEOs could be applied to. We also know that other children, outside this group of 80, have been taken there or were born overseas to Australians.
The government needs to be clear to whom and to how many people these TEOs could apply. Today on Sky News, the Minister for Home Affairs refused to answer how many people the scheme could apply to, and he refused to answer how many Australian children are counted in the figures we've seen reported of people who are overseas. From the reports I have seen, there are large numbers of Australian children and women overseas, and a small, defined and known number of males. I would expect—and I trust—that our national security and intelligence organisations know who these people are and, largely, where they are. Whatever the numbers may be, Labor's view is that national security legislation must be carefully crafted and constitutionally valid. We need a temporary exclusion order scheme that works, otherwise there is no point in having such a scheme.
The United Kingdom introduced their temporary exclusion order scheme in 2015, some four years ago. Given that the Minister for Home Affairs here so frequently refers to the United Kingdom scheme as the model for the government's legislation, if it were not so serious it would be amusing that it has taken him four years to do this work and bring these laws before the parliament. On Monday, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, said that the government was, 'Working through national security legislation as quickly as possible.' According to the government, four years is what they classify as working as quickly as possible when it comes to responding to the need to safely receive foreign fighters back into Australia. With the United Kingdom government having their own TEO scheme in place for four years already, countless warning that foreign fighters would start to make their way home, it beggars belief that the Minister for Home Affairs did not introduce his temporary exclusion order legislation until February this year.
Indeed, we have seen media reports that some 40 foreign fighters have already returned to Australia in the four years' time that it has taken the government to introduce these laws into the parliament. We have also seen reports that of the 40 supposed jihadis that have returned, many of them may have gone over to be part of the Arab Spring, again an area in which the government has failed to provide clarity. But it does need to be asked: was it incompetence or apathy towards the risk of foreign fighters by the Minister for Home Affairs that saw him do nothing for four years to bring these laws before the parliament?
The government's model before the parliament is significantly different from the UK TEO scheme to which Minister Dutton does so frequently refer. For example, in the United Kingdom, a TEO can only be issued if the court gives the Home Secretary permission to do so, whereas the government's proposed temporary exclusion order model that was introduced in February would have meant the Minister for Home Affairs could simply issue a temporary exclusion order without any judicial oversight whatsoever. Given the Minister for Home Affairs' track record at crying wolf and bending the truth, if there's one minister who requires oversight, it is the current Minister for Home Affairs.
The government's own response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report shows that of the 18 recommendations made by that bipartisan committee, chaired by Andrew Hastie, the Liberal member in the other place, this government has implemented only 16 recommendations. I don't agree with that characterisation of their response and I will come back to that, but, by the government's own standards, they have failed to implement two of the bipartisan committee's recommendations. Yesterday the chair of the PJCIS, Mr Hastie, voted against his own recommendations in the other place. He said he was satisfied with the government's response. I asked: if that were the case, why did he, along with his Liberal colleagues on this Liberal-dominated committee, make their recommendations in the first place? The member for Berowra said the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is like every other parliamentary committee in this place, a committee. Well, that is not the complete truth. Since 2013, the government has not explicitly rejected a recommendation of the PJCIS. And it is not like every other committee; it is set up by its own legislation. This committee has always sought to improve and better the national security legislation in this country.
While the government will have you believe they have implemented 16 of the 18 recommendations of the PJCIS, this is not the case. Instead of agreeing to and implementing all 18 of the PJCIS's substantive recommendations, the government has in fact rejected four recommendations, only partially implemented six recommendations and ignored one recommendation—that is, to produce Solicitor-General's advice that shows that this bill is constitutionally valid. It is not clear if the government has implemented recommendation 18 of the PJCIS, advice from the Solicitor-General on the final version of the bill—that is, the government has indicated that it has obtained advice but it is not clear whether the Solicitor-General has provided advice in respect to the final form of this bill. For all we know, the government's advice from the Solicitor-General could be from the February version of the bill; for all we know, the advice that they have could say that this bill is unconstitutional. Why is it always the case with this government and the Minister for Home Affairs that they run from transparency and revel in secrecy? I say to the government: if you have advice from the Solicitor-General in relation to this bill, release it.
The claims that releasing such advice would be unprecedented are false. The government have done so with Home Affairs legislation previously. They have done so even in relation to the Minister for Home Affairs and his eligibility to sit in this parliament. The government should release the Solicitor-General's advice to assure all Australians of this bill's constitutionality.
The day this bill was reintroduced, 4 July, Australia woke up to newspaper headlines in The Australian which read 'Security bills test Albanese's mettle'. Since then I've heard constant claims from those opposite, as well as in the media, that this bill is a test for Labor. News flash: Labor is not the government. The test for legislation should be the national interest. Disappointed as I am that Labor did not win the election, that is the reality of the situation we are in. This is a test for the government to introduce legislation that serves the national interest, that is constitutionally valid and that works. That is how this place operates. As the opposition, we are here to hold the government to account and to scrutinise legislation. This is exactly what Labor did through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The scrutiny should be focused on the government because it is the government that sets the legislative agenda, drafts legislation and then attempts to pass it through the parliament.
In fact this bill was a national security test in actuality for the Minister for Home Affairs. He has clearly failed by choosing to break the bipartisan compact of the PJCIS. By doing this, the home affairs minister, the Prime Minister and the government are allowing a dangerous precedent to be set. The fact is that the revised TEO legislation that is now before the Senate is substantially different from the legislation introduced in February, substantially different to the recommendations made by the PJCIS and substantially different from the UK scheme to which Mr Dutton so frequently refers. This should give us pause to ask, will Mr Dutton's current version of the TEO laws actually keep Australians safe? Will they stand up to constitutional challenge and will they achieve the aims they are promising? These are questions the Minister for Home Affairs has yet to answer. This is why Labor has asked the government to refer the TEO legislation back to the PJCIS for further consideration. This request has so far fallen on deaf ears.
I note that I'm not alone in my reservations about how the Minister for Home Affairs is handling temporary exclusion orders. National security experts from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Lowy Institute, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Law Council have all raised concerns. John Coyne from ASPI wrote recently:
There's also no guarantee that the terror threat posed by a foreign fighter is mitigated by excluding them from returning to Australia … An Australian citizen excluded from returning to Australia under the proposed legislation may still represent a threat to Australians and Australian interests offshore.
The concerns that Mr Coyne has expressed lie in the government's overall strategy for minimising the risk of radicalised Australians who are overseas. The TEO scheme is a single piece of legislation, but it is not in itself a panacea. Temporary exclusion orders should not be an excuse to outsource Australia's global responsibilities or to pass the buck when it comes to bringing foreign fighters home and bringing them to justice. The clue is in the title: 'temporary'. However, Mr Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, is yet to explain exactly how Australia will ensure foreign fighters subject to TEOs aren't left to wander the globe indefinitely with the risk of becoming more radicalised and even radicalising others before they return to Australia. Regrettably, we have seen the atrocities such foreign fighters have been able to inflict on innocent lives too many times.
These things are essential as we consider the TEO legislation, because temporary exclusion orders are too important for the home affairs minister or the government to get wrong. As Labor has always stated, we support the intent of a temporary exclusion order scheme and, I should note, the return permit scheme that is part of this legislation. It would see those Australian foreign fighters returned to Australia in a manner prescribed by the minister and the government in order to ensure that Australians and the Australian community is kept safe.
It is my most deep disappointment that the government, and in particular the Minister for Home Affairs, has broken the bipartisan compact we've shared for so long when it comes to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I'm also disappointed that the government has chosen not to refer this legislation back to the PJCIS. We could have resolved these issues swiftly to ensure that this legislation was sound.
Labor has endeavoured to work with the government to ensure Australia has a TEO scheme that works, is constitutional, keeps Australians safe and withstands High Court challenges. In the Committee of the Whole stage, I will be moving amendments on behalf of Labor to wholly implement the recommendations of the bipartisan PJCIS, those recommendations the government has chosen to reject in whole or in part. I hope that, in doing so, Senators Abetz, Fawcett and Stoker, all of whom signed off on those recommendations—put their name to them and handed them over to the Minister for Home Affairs—will in fact support those recommendations and amendments. If they do not, I hope it does not signal the grave breakdown and demise of the bipartisan PJCIS and the important work that it has always undertaken.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (18:25): The Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill will introduce two new orders that can be made by the Minister for Home Affairs: firstly, a temporary exclusion order, a TEO, which may prevent an Australian citizen aged 14 years or older—I'll pause there and remind everyone we're talking about children being captured within the scope of this bill—who is overseas from returning to Australia for up to two years at a time and, secondly, a return permit under which the minister may impose conditions on the person's entry into Australia, including conditions with which the person must comply for up to 12 months after re-entering our country.
I'm going to be very clear about this. This bill is a fundamental undermining of the rule of law in this country. This legislation, if successful, will set Minister Peter Dutton up as judge and jury, and it will continue the slow zombie shuffle that the bipartisanship on national security undergoing, meaning that Australia is on the road to becoming a police and surveillance state. This bill will be strongly opposed by the Australian Greens. As doctors Ananian-Welsh, Blackbourn and McGarrity of the universities of Queensland, Oxford and New South Wales respectively have cautioned, this bill will have a significant impact on the fundamental human rights of Australian citizens recognised by international law. These rights include the right of abode, the right to family, the right to liberty, the right to security of the person, the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of association and movement. If that list of fundamental human rights, which actually underpins our way of life in this country, soon to be compromised by this legislation is not enough to make this parliament whoa up and have another think about the path we're on, I don't know what will.
This bill provides that a TEO can be made for a period of up to two years. By the way, a TEO can be made without the person who will be impacted finding out about it at all. This is a massive denial of procedural fairness. The subject of a TEO must be made aware of the order by the minister as soon as, in the minister's opinion, is reasonable and practicable. But on what is reasonable and practicable in the opinion of a minister, particularly the current minister, Mr Dutton, the bill provides no guidance whatsoever. Of course, the penalty for entering Australia if a TEO is in forced is up to two years imprisonment. So you can get chucked in the slammer in this country for trying to re-enter even if the government hasn't bothered to tell you there's a TEO that applies to you in the first place.
We've just listened to a first speech from a Liberal senator which talked about the philosophical underpinnings of the Liberal Party being freedom of the individual. Less than an hour later the government is bringing in legislation to this parliament that undermines the freedom of the individual in this country.
Senator Seselja interjecting—
Senator McKIM: I missed that interjection, but, if Senator Seselja would like to repeat it, I'm happy to respond. No. This fundamentally erodes the freedom of the individual in this country and fundamentally erodes and undermines the rule of law in Australia. This is a sad, sad day for the country, and it continues to build on the over 200 pieces of legislation that have passed through the state, territory and Commonwealth parliaments in the last two decades that erode the fundamental rights, freedoms and liberties of people in this country. These are the liberties we used to send Australians overseas, including my family members, to fight to defend, and now we're giving them away, hand over fist, because of the bipartisanship on national security and a government that wants to sleepwalk this country down the road to a totalitarian state. What a disgraceful day this is for the country!
So, a 14-year-old Australian citizen in a conflict zone overseas could be issued with a TEO but not know because, for example, they weren't able to access their emails. This 14-year-old then tries to return home, perhaps even to escape radical and extremist influences where they are overseas and, wham, they're imprisoned for up to two years. It's unbelievable that we have arrived at this place.
Senator Hanson interjecting—
Senator McKIM: And I'm not taking interjections from a racist like Senator Hanson. Under this bill, the minister is not even required to consider whether the subject of a TEO is a citizen, has residency or—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ): Senator Hanson, on a point of order?
Senator Hanson: I want that remark made by Senator McKim withdrawn.
Senator McKIM: I can assist the chair; I withdraw the remark.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Hanson. Thank you, Senator McKim.
Senator McKIM: Under this bill, the minister is not even required to consider whether the subject of a TEO is a citizen, has residency or whether they are eligible for citizenship or residency in another country. But, if an Australian citizen who would be subject to a TEO is being deported to Australia, the minister must give that person a return permit which will allow them to return, but pre-entry and post-entry conditions can be attached to the permit. These conditions do not need to be individually justified by the minister, and noncompliance with the condition, whether justifiable or not, can also result in two years imprisonment.
Potential post-entry conditions are many and varied and may require the returnee to notify a specified person or body about their whereabouts, activities, employment and use of technology. These conditions can also be coupled with a control order that prohibits certain movements, associations and technologies. It's important to note that such restrictions to basic freedoms could socially exclude a returnee from family, from friends, from social support networks and, if applied arbitrarily or irresponsibly—which is certainly odds on under the current minister—could seriously impede the returnee's capacity to reintegrate with society and, potentially, deradicalise.
One of the pre-entry conditions that can be attached to a return permit—a permit which, by the way, can be revoked by the minister at any time—is that the Australian citizen must not return to Australia within 12 months of the return permit being issued. Both the power to exclude a person from returning or re-entering their home country for two years under a TEO and the power to prevent someone from re-entering their country for 12 months under a return permit appear to contravene article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR, which Australia has ratified—and I quote from that section:
… No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
So here we are, once again, as we've done with our offshore detention regime, as we've done so often with legislation passed in the name of national security, abandoning the commitments that we've made in signing up to very significant international covenants and agreements.
Worse yet, despite the bill's statement of compatibility with human rights claiming that TEOs will not permanently exclude the subject of a TEO from entering Australia, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that will prevent the minister from issuing an indefinite series of TEOs against Australian citizens. In other words, they can issue a TEO for two years and then, on its expiry, they can simply issue another one for two years and another two years and another two years and another two years, ad infinitum—a lifetime ban on coming back to your own country.
I have to say, having returned from Manus Island only a few days ago, that, sadly, I'm all too familiar with Minister Dutton's predilection for arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment and sentences. Given that these orders can apply to a 14-year-old—a 14-year-old child!—I reckon I'm on pretty safe ground to suggest that these powers contravene article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia has also ratified. This international obligation is supported by a 1995 High Court judgement that found, 'The interests of the child must be given either the greatest weight or equal greatest weight with other considerations.' This bill patently fails to meet that test. I ask the Senate a question: how can legislation that bars an Australian child—a 14-year-old Australian child—from re-entering his or her own country, away from radical and extremist ideologies, back into a place where we can offer them supports and we can offer them the assistance they need to deradicalise, be in the best interests of the child?
It's one thing to contravene international agreements—this government does it all the time, and it makes their culpability worse by denying that they are doing it while in fact they are—but it is another thing to flagrantly disregard the Australian Constitution. The Law Society of New South Wales has expressed deep concern that this bill, if on its true construction it authorises the executive to impose punishment for criminal conduct, will collide with Chapter III of the Constitution. The New South Wales Law Society goes on to quote a finding of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia: 'It is a fundamental principle of the Australian Constitution, flowing from Chapter III, that the adjudication and punishment of criminal guilt for offences against the law of the Commonwealth is exclusively within the province of courts exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth.' It says 'courts', not 'the minister'.
But this government either can't or won't understand the need for the separation of powers in this country. They don't understand the separation of church and state, so why would we assume they have any concern for the doctrine of the separation of powers? And the minister needs little more than suspicion to justify to this legislation's satisfaction placing these orders and penalties on Australian citizens. If you want to contest the minister's suspicions, well, you won't be able to. So much for the burden of proof, a cardinal principle of our system of justice.
This bill, as I said, undermines the rule of law. It does away with common law principles and it does away with procedural fairness. On procedure fairness, it denies people who are subject to an order or permit opportunities to dispute or test the evidence against them. No minister, particularly the minister we have now, should be allowed to set themselves up as judge and jury, but that's what this legislation does. On the exclusion of procedural fairness, I know that clause 26 provides explicitly:
The Minister is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in exercising a power or performing a function under this Act.
'Not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness'—that's what Australia has come to today.
This bill is another sorry and frightening example of government legislation, cheered on by the so-called opposition, showing why we need a charter of rights in this country. We are the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of constitutionally enshrined or legislatively enshrined charter or bill of rights, and that is something the Australians Greens will continue to fight for. As the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre warned, this bill will undermine the value of holding Australian citizenship and create a second class of citizen with fewer rights and protections. One of the most fundamental rights that we all have in this place is our Australian citizenship. As citizens, the principle ought to be: we are all treated equally under the law. This bill walks away from that principle.
If people have committed a crime overseas, there is abundant legislation currently on the statute books to charge people in Australia with the crime for fighting with terrorist organisations overseas. They should be brought to this country, they should be charged and, if found guilty by our independent judicial system, they should be sentenced appropriately. That is the way that we make the world safer. We shouldn't be washing our hands of our people who make the terrible decision to go overseas and engage in these activities. We should not be washing our hands of responsibility for them, but the principle behind this bill is that we're just happy to leave them over there to keep causing trouble. What sort of international citizens are we becoming? We should take responsibility for the actions of our people. We should bring them here, into this country, and if they've done something wrong or unlawful, they should face the full weight of the law, like all the rest of us would in that situation. But, no, the major parties are colluding to wash their hands of these troubles.
Several stakeholders have questioned why this bill is even needed, given it doesn't appear to cover anything not already captured by existing counterterrorism powers. Now they are right about that, but I want to point out this: this bill creates replica powers free of accountability, free of rigour and unencumbered by the rule of law. This is draconian legislation, and I want to ask members of the Australian Labor Party: what would it take for you to actually stand up and oppose the government on a matter of national security? How bad would things actually need to get before the Labor Party discovered, or rediscovered, its spine? What would actually constitute a step too far for the Australian Labor Party? How many rights would have to be curtailed before the Labor Party awake from the stupor that they have found themselves in on these issues for nearly two decades? And when will the Labor Party stop kowtowing to this bullying government, or, worse still, trying to outflank this government from the right?
The people of Australia actually can no longer rely on the Labor Party to stand up for their rights. They want the Australian Labor Party to do more than what they're doing on this bill, which is to point out all the flaws in it and to then vote with the government to pass it. We're in a climate emergency; economic inequality is rampant. There are full-blown authoritarians holding government office in this country, and on all of these issues the ALP has abandoned the field. When the people of Australia need someone to fight for their rights in this place, they can turn to the Australian Greens. We will do the job of an opposition, even if the Labor Party has vacated the field. All the evidence, since the election, has shown that the Greens are going to have to stand up and fight for our rights in this country, and do it without the Labor Party. So be it. So we will. We'll fight for human rights. We'll fight for civil rights. We'll fight for the rights of children. We'll fight for the freedoms and the liberties that our country, in its recent history, has fought for in wars. We'll fight to protect our climate. We'll stand with the Australian people in their fight for justice and a fair go. This is a shocking piece of legislation. It undermines the rule of law. It sets Minister Dutton up as judge and jury. And it's been delivered by this beloved-of-the-major-parties bipartisanship on national security. The collusion that occurs between the major parties on national security issues behind the closed doors of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security is marching this country down the road to becoming a police state. We the Greens will call this out in every single time it happens because we are losing our rights and our freedoms as people, and the major parties are colluding to continue down that extremely dangerous path.
I don't want to live in a police state. I don't want to live in a surveillance state. I cherish my rights and freedoms too much to go quietly down that path, while the major parties in this place stitch up these laws behind the closed doors of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security. That committee needs reform. That committee needs crossbench voices, that committee needs the disinfectant of sunlight, and we have to break the bipartisanship on national security that has been and tragically, I predict, will continue to be so damaging for rights and freedoms in this country.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (18:46): Well, I don't know. I'm just about to be sick after what I have just heard delivered in this place, talking about people's freedoms when there are many Australians in this country who still don't have the freedom to walk safely because of the ideologies of people who have no regard for the Australian people and who wish harm on us, which has happened. There are some of us in this place who take the safety of Australian citizens seriously and then there are those who clearly don't. Those of you who dread the thought of a toxic, violent and lethal ideology returning to Australia will join with me in supporting this temporary exclusion order bill today, a law that is also in the UK—it may not be the same but it was brought into the UK as well because they knew what was happening in their country.
I don't think enough consideration goes into the work that it takes or the money it costs taxpayers to monitor between 400 and 500 Islamic extremists who have somehow been given the freedom and right to live in a peaceful nation like Australia. So it deeply concerns me to think that, under the current legislation, we are fuelling a fight by allowing some of the 230 people who left Australia to fight for terrorist groups back into this country. There are 230 left. Are they all Australians? Were they born here? I don't know. Do they have dual citizenship? Again, I don't know. Did they migrate out here to make Australia their home and are they wishing to fight against the values and principles of Western societies and destroy another country?
I know they are against Western values and I know that they are hateful towards our culture and our way of life. One hundred of those have actually been killed. I'm glad to see the end of them. Eighty want to come back to Australia—hence the bill. And if you allow that 80 back in then their wives, their kids will be allowed in as well. What are their thoughts? What are their beliefs? Are they the same as their husband's? Then we have more problems on our hands. It concerns not only me but also federal and state police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as well.
We are talking about the types of scumbags like Khaled Sharrouf. I want senators to imagine a dysfunctional character like Khaled Sharrouf, who left Australia in 2013 to fight for Isis, back in Australia. He was the guy who held up the severed and bloodied heads of Syrian soldiers and who made his young sons do the same. Senator McKim may talk about 14-year-olds; these kids were younger than 14. If you understand Islamic terrorists, they train them, they radicalise them and that's why they get them young. These are the types who want to come back to Australia. These are the people whose rights the Greens and Labor have defended. All I can say is thank God we killed him and his horrible terrorist sons in 2017. If ISIS weren't broadly defeated in Syria and other parts of the Middle East, these people wouldn't be fleeing. They'd be expanding their terrorist network into other countries.
I went to a function in Sydney just a couple of weeks ago. I had no idea who the Chaldeans were. They come from Syria and Iran. They are basically a Christian group of people going back hundreds and hundreds of years. Ask them what's happened to their countries. Ask them what's happened to the women and children. Their homes have gone—absolute destruction—because of ISIS. They have been given an opportunity to live in Australia that they are so grateful for. But the pain is still there. Who is doing anything about it? Do we ask those people if they want these men back in Australia, these fighters of ISIS? I'm sure they would say, resoundingly, no. I believe millions of Australians don't want them back in this country.
Instead, the surviving cowards of ISIS are happy to return to Australia and spread their hateful ideology here. I believe the majority of Australians don't have any sympathy for these terrorist fighters and want them kept out. That's been quite evident in listening to talkback radio and as I travel around the country talking to other Australians. If I had my way they'd never be allowed back into Australia at all. But, apparently, that's not constitutional. That's why the temporary ban is for two years, notwithstanding a further two years if necessary.
Labor have never been tough on border security, and they were sent a very clear message at the recent federal election about their inability to take a strong stance on terrorism and illegal border arrivals. I trust that senators of the Labor Party will heed the warning of Australian voters and support this bill in the Senate. As for the Greens—well, we've heard their reply from Senator McKim. Their policy on open borders and allowing in non-vetted people with these barbaric, hard-core and fundamental Islamic ideologies cannot continue. I listen to Senator McKim and he talks about their basic human rights. Well, I'm sorry, what about Australians basic human rights? What about the people in Syria and Iran, and even in Afghanistan? What about their basic human rights? He's not thinking about that.
Everyone has responsibilities for their own actions. These people lost their basic human rights. He talked about freedom—their basic freedoms: that's what it's all about. Basic freedoms and their freedom of movement in Australia, because if they come back here we're going to monitor them. How dare we do that! How dare we know where they're going and what they're doing! If they're planning a terrorist attack or if they want to murder an Australian, how dare we ask about that and their basic freedoms? No! They lost their freedoms when they left this country to go and fight. They had no fear, but an intention to kill those who opposed their ideology and to take over countries and murder others—innocents. These people don't deserve to be here. Why should we bring them back? Why should we pay for their legal costs and then end up with them possibly in prison at a cost to the taxpayer? They made their choices in life. You make your bed and you lie on it, as far as I'm concerned.
How ridiculous is it to say that you're losing your freedoms? What about the people that have lost their lives in this country because of those who want to take innocent people's lives because of their own views? Treated equally under the law—that was another comment: treated equally under the law. They gave up those rights. They don't have those rights to be treated equally.
I've been in this chamber now for three years. I hear the Greens going on with their comments about all how they want to protect everyone's rights, but it is never, ever about the people here in this country and protecting the rights of people in Australia. It is always about everyone else around the world and their privacy and protecting their rights. Your responsibility is here in this country to protect the rights of the people here. As we make this decision, their right is that we ensure the safety of the people in Australia first and foremost. We're sending a clear message: if you have to go through this, a TEO, to get back into this country, so be it. Then you might think twice about leaving our shores to go and fight in another country where you have no regard for life over there.
So it's about time we toughened up and got tough on this. That's what the Australian people want from us. Heaven help us if the Greens ever get control of the government in this country. It would be bedlam. As I said, it is a real concern where we are headed as a nation if we do not allow this bill to pass. As well, I would say that most of these people who want to come back here would be unemployable. Not only will they cost Australia enormous amounts of money in surveillance, but they will have a tendency to remain on long-term welfare—plus their families, if they want to apply to bring in their families.
Lastly, I would like to put on the record how grateful One Nation voters and I are for the tireless work of our Australian Defence Force and coalition partners, who have decimated groups like Isis. The Australian federal and state police, along with ASIO officers, also deserve an enormous amount of praise for their help in maintaining the safety of all Australians against the terrorist threat in this nation. To all our serving personnel, both here and abroad, all I can say is thank you.
I can speak on that because I went to Afghanistan last year. I was in the war zone and I saw how the benefits of us being over there had helped the country to get back on their own feet and start learning how to defend themselves to give the people back their right to actually vote, which they were frightened to ever do before. So our presence over there is helping the people. To spend time with the soldiers over there and try to understand them was a wonderful experience for me. So, unlike a lot of people here in this place, who speak on an issue yet have never travelled over there to take firsthand experience to do with it, you clearly sometimes don't even know what you're talking about.
I don't want to see this terrorism in our own country. The only way we're going to stop that is to take a strong stance against these people coming back here, who will clearly have this hatred in their hearts for us, our culture and our way of life, and will do us harm whenever they possibly can.
So I say to the Greens, I wish you would do the job that you should be doing here: standing up and representing the people of Australia and their safety first and foremost. Because isn't their safety the number one issue that we must be looking at here, first and foremost? These freedom fighters made their choice to go over and fight in another country. What about the lives that are being destroyed there? They have no regard for that. Do you think they have any regard for lives here in this country? A clear message must be sent to everyone else in this country: if they think about wanting to leave our shores to go and fight somewhere else, there will be repercussions and you will face those repercussions. If it means you will never be able to return home to Australia, so be it. If it means you will never come back here and see your family, so be it. You made your choice in life. You made your bed, you lie in it.
I hope that this bill gets through tonight with some commonsense from the senators in this place. It is so important to our security. I will say to the government, to Peter Dutton, that I am grateful that they have introduced this bill, because this is what the Australian people want.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (18:59): The Labor Party has a long and proud tradition of seeking to place national security well above partisan politics. Amongst other forums, we seek to do that through the processes of the PJCIS. Protecting the security of Australians is a fundamental responsibility of government, and as a party of government we take that responsibility very seriously. We also understand that exercising that responsibility requires coordinated action by parliament and the executive, and it's on that basis that we offer bipartisanship on national security issues.
Bipartisanship requires two parties; the hint is in the name. It's becoming apparent that the only party committed to it is us. The government seems determined to undermine it in relation to the bill that is before this chamber, the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019. The government rushed this legislation through PJCIS, but, despite that, coalition and Labor members on that committee worked diligently through various community concerns and provided their detailed report on 4 April 2019, making 18 substantive recommendations. These recommendations were not landed upon lightly. They were the product of debate, discussion and deliberation amongst all of the members of the committee. I would make this observation: contrary to the assertions of some, for us bipartisanship does not mean automatic agreement. What it does mean is a serious commitment to dealing with the policy issues as they are presented to us by the experts and dealing seriously with the community concerns that are presented to us, and we do that through the processes of the PJCIS, negotiating in entirely good faith with the other members of that committee.
The recommendations of the committee addressed very real concerns that the bill may have unconstitutional or unintended consequences. The purpose and effect of these recommendations were set out earlier by the shadow minister for home affairs and the shadow Attorney-General in the other place. The government has rejected four of these recommendations in full and a further six in part. People need to understand how serious this state of affairs is. It is the first time since 2013 that the government has explicitly rejected PJCIS recommendations. It's unwise on the policy front because these recommendations are important, but, more broadly, it undermines the operation of the PJCIS. What faith can members of the committee now place in the undertakings and commitments that are made by coalition members of that committee? The Minister for Home Affairs seems determined to undermine his colleagues. The government has walked away from bipartisanship on this occasion, and on that basis we will be departing from our usual practice and will be moving amendments in this chamber.
Looking at this debate, you get the sense that our government is searching for a way to manufacture conflict. It was brought on suddenly with an argument about urgency. We need to be very clear: this is not a problem that has suddenly arisen for Australia. Since 2013, when the government was elected, Australia, like many other Western nations, has seen some of its citizens head to Syria and Iraq. And for the past few years Australia, like other nations, has had to decide how to deal with these citizens when they wish to return. In a real contrast to Australia, the United Kingdom dealt with this some years ago. The bill in that country that the government likes to compare this bill to was introduced in 2015. In the four years since those decisions taken in the UK it's reported that up to 40 foreign fighters have re-entered Australia. It makes you wonder how the government's stated commitment to national security, how the urgency of this bill can be reconciled with the historical record in relation to foreign fighters and their return to our country.
I think there has been a great deal of confusion in the public debate about the scope of this bill, and in particular who it affects. Published figures suggest that there are perhaps 80 people who could be affected: 20 women, 57 children and a range of men, many of whom are currently being held in Kurdish prisons. Some of the rhetoric would make it seem as though this bill is the only thing standing between Australians and a horde of foreign fighters, and those figures suggest it is plainly not. It is one of a large number of tools that our intelligence and law enforcement officials have at their disposal. Many of the people returning could well face criminal charges for having gone to an area controlled by ISIS in the first place, and others may be subject to control orders and monitoring.
There is also confusion in the public debate about the operation of the bill. The tone of the debate makes it seem as though the bill is about keeping people out of Australia. It is not. It is about managing the way that they re-enter the country. Once the minister issues a temporary exclusion order, the person affected has the right to apply for a return permit. If the person makes the application in the form and manner specified by the relevant rules, the minister must grant the permit. There is no discretion. This scheme helps to ensure that there is a proper process for that re-entry. It allows us to delay and control the return and re-entry of Australians of counterterrorism interest until appropriate protections are in place, and it enables the Minister for Home Affairs to impose conditions on those individuals once they've returned to Australia to manage any risks that they may pose. These potential conditions that may be placed on their return are contained in the legislation in an exhaustive list that details the reporting requirements that might be required—reporting about where you live, where you study and the telecommunications access that you might seek to engage in.
Labor supports the intent of this bill. We put the safety and security of Australians first. We support strong laws that are proportionate to the scale of the threat and are targeted at the threat. We seek to work in a bipartisan fashion to achieve the best outcomes for keeping our nation safe. This law needs to work to be able to efficiently and effectively achieve those objectives. That is why the PJCIS made recommendations to address some of the deficiencies in this bill, and that is why Labor will be moving amendments.
(Quorum formed)
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (19:08): Our entire system of government is built around the notion of the separation of powers. It's constructed that way to prevent politicians from engaging in corruption and using their office against the public interest. We've got checks and balances that make sure that no single minister is able to amass too much power. For our system to function properly, no minister should be able to set themselves up as judge and jury. Of course, if there was a list of ministers that we might want to trust with that power, Minister Peter Dutton would be dead last on that list.
Yet that is what this bill does, and it does it all in the name of national security and bipartisanship. It is that bipartisanship that has got us into the mess that we're in today. We have seen a bipartisan consensus between the Liberal and Labor parties so that anything with the term 'national security' cannot even be debated. We know that if people have committed a crime then they should be charged in a court of law, and, if found guilty, sentenced to a term of imprisonment if that crime is punishable with that sentence. Instead, what this bill asks us to do is to push that fundamental responsibility off onto other countries to manage.
Well, we don't support that. If we truly want to make the world a safer place then what we should do is ensure that people who commit crimes are brought home and monitored in Australia, not cut loose in the very countries in which they're most likely to engage in violence and are least able to be brought to justice. This law has the potential to create two classes of Australian citizen and to apply to children as young as 14. That's not what this country is about. We don't treat children like that, and yet that's what this bill asks us to do. How can it possibly be in the best interests of a child as young as 14 to bar them from re-entering their country of birth? If what we want to do is to draw these children away from radical and extremist ideologies, what better way than to bring them here, back into Australia, where they have family and social support networks, and where we can ensure that they are able to function as decent citizens in a decent country?
National security, for too long, has been something that this government has used as an opportunity to try to push what is a radical, dangerous agenda through this parliament and use it as a wedge to attack the Labor Party. I expect that sort of nonsense—that garbage—from Minister Dutton. It's clear that they don't have an agenda in this parliament, so what better agenda than to do everything they can in the first week that this parliament is debating serious business than to put forward bills that try to attack their political opponents? But that is no way of running a country. We saw it earlier this week when it came to the drought reform package and we're going to see it later this week when it comes to the treatment of activists, of people standing up for improving animal welfare standards in this country. And we're seeing it right now, with this government doing everything they can to try to force the Labor Party into supporting a position that they know the Labor Party have already expressed concerns about.
This legislation was debated through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We have grave concerns about that committee. It's a black box. It's not open to members of the crossbench or the Greens. Evidence is heard in camera; we're not privy to the arguments that are made that lead to recommendations that almost always ensure that legislation that restricts people's freedom is passed. And even that committee—that committee, that almost always supports, with few changes, national security legislation—expressed concerns about the bill that we're debating today, and it made a series of recommendations that it should be amended. The Labor Party have expressed concerns that the government is ignoring the recommendations of that committee. And if the PJCIS is making recommendations that a law needs to be changed, we know that there is something wrong with that piece of legislation! And yet, despite the fact that those recommendations have been made and despite the fact that we've heard from the shadow Attorney-General that he has grave concerns about that legislation, they're going to give the government another blank cheque. They're going to give the government full support for a piece of legislation that they've expressed grave concerns over.
When is the Labor Party going to stand up to this shocking government? Last week, you turned your back on 100 years of progressive taxation, 100 years of support for using the tax system to ensure we address economic inequality. This week you're turning your back on 800 years of separating power away from the hands of one person. You're turning your back on some of the fundamental tenants of western Liberal democracy that say we should never concentrate too much power in the hands of a single individual. Why? It's because you're afraid. You're afraid of looking like you're weak on national security. Well, you won't be weak on national security. You'll be strong on standing up for the individual rights of every citizen of this country.
The test that should be met here is a test that is one that we put before courts of law. We don't want to leave these decisions up to ministers in this parliament, because we know that some of them—and, indeed, this minister—will use that power to score craven political advantage. Are you really willing to sacrifice a separation of powers and the lives of young Australians just to make sure the coalition can't run an ad three years from now saying that the Labor Party's soft on terror? Take a stand, for goodness sake. People right around the country are crying out for someone to take it up to this government.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you don't beat the Tories by becoming just like the Tories. That's what Labor seems to be doing. The Labor Party lost an election, but it's behaving like there was a hostile takeover of the Labor Party by the Liberal Party. We're disappointed with the outcome of the election. But toughen up. Show some courage. Grow a spine. People around the country, voters are asking, 'What do you stand for?'
We've got a responsibility in this place to stand up for the things we believe in. To get on the radio in the morning and say that you've got grave concerns about the government's legislation is one thing, but it means nothing if you're going to vote for it. We have a responsibility in this place to oppose bad laws, and we have a responsibility in this place to look after people who don't have a voice.
I am sick and tired of standing up in this chamber and being the voice of the only party prepared to speak against bad legislation and then vote against bad legislation. You spent an election campaign talking about economic inequality and how the tax system was rigged to benefit people on high incomes. What did you do when you came into the joint? You worked with the coalition to hand a whacking great big tax cut to the wealthiest Australians!
Before the election, you said the drought fund was going to line the pockets of National Party mates and that you wouldn't support the drought fund for that reason—because it was ripping money out of infrastructure to support the big corporate irrigator mates of the National Party. And what did you do when you come back in here? You voted for the thing! Before the election, it was a good thing that the coal industry was coming to an end, according to Richard Marles. Apparently now, according to Richard Marles, we should be celebrating the coal industry and the contribution it makes to the Australian economy!
Well, we've had a gut full of it. We've had a gutful. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is only one voice in this parliament that will take it up to the coalition. We're not going to roll over just so that the Prime Minister can tickle our tummies, just so that we might look like we're soft on national security legislation. You know where that leads. It leads to journalists raiding the offices of the ABC. That's where it leads—the slow and gradual creep to a police state. Well, if you don't want to lead the opposition to this rotten, terrible, stinking government, the Greens will do it for you.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ) (19:20): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Long, Mr Jack, Sr
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:20): I rise to pay tribute to a Territory and AFL legend, Mr Jack Long Sr, who was farewelled in Darwin last Friday aged 84. I pass on my condolences to his family, his seven sons, Stephen, Brian, Michael, Noel, Christopher, Patrick and John, and his two daughters, Kathy and Susie, and his many grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Mr Long died on 9 July after a long illness. He was a beloved and respected member of the Northern Territory community. He was, I would argue, this nation's most celebrated football patriarch. He was the father of Essendon premiership great and Norm Smith Medal winner Michael Long, he's the grandfather of four-time premiership winner and Norm Smith Medallist Cyril Rioli Jr, and grandfather to current Essendon player Jake Long and St Kilda player Ben Long.
We all know of his son Michael Long, who, of course, is a very strong advocate for First Nations people. After returning home from yet another funeral, Michael decided that he would do something about it. You may recall that he began the long walk from Melbourne to Canberra to meet with the then Prime Minister John Howard to discuss his concerns. Each year in Melbourne, with the Dreamtime at the 'G, we see the result of that long walk in the movement of people like Michael Long, inspired greatly by his father Jack Long, to bring about better understanding between black and white Australians in this country.
Jack was, of course, a footballer himself. He played over 200 games and won three premierships with St Mary's Football Club in the Northern Territory, and he was a lifetime member of the Northern Territory Football League.
He was a member of the stolen generation—a period in our country's history we reflect on greatly, and, indeed, there were promising times with the Apology in the Australian parliament in 2010. Mr Long was taken from his mother and the desert community of Ti Tree on Anmetjere country when he was just three years of age. He was brought up by Catholic nuns in a mission on the Tiwi Islands. The Tiwi Islands became his home, and they are most certainly a very much loved home for the Long family and their descendants.
He married his childhood sweetheart, Agnes, who had also been stolen from her family at Daly River, south of Darwin. As I said, they had seven sons and two daughters, raising them all on the beautiful Tiwi Islands. He was certainly most proud of his family—every single one of them. He passed on his language, hunting and cultural skills and, no doubt, many, many stories. Mr Long was also an experienced hunter and fisher and worked as a marine surveyor on Melville Island in the Tiwi Islands.
At his funeral, hundreds of people gathered to pay their respects. Even more so, right across the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia, all those people who were unable to attend sent their regards to a family and a man who started an incredible dynasty—not just in the Northern Territory but right across the country—to try and bring about better understanding of the issues that impact First Nations people. Through his children, his grandchildren and his greats to come, no doubt that memory will be long remembered. Vale Jack Long, a cherished Territorian.
Rural Australia
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:24): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to continue my remarks from yesterday by going on to another group. Yesterday, I discussed the burden of farmers, who are suffering, and the courage they have under assault. As Marty Bella, a former State of Origin hero in Rugby League, said, there is an ideological assault on rural Australia. Senator Pauline Hanson has been exposing this assault since 1996. Yesterday, I said that Marty Bella is a co-founder of Green Shirts, the real conservationists and protectors of the environment, and he finds himself now in a real battle—along with every other farmer in Queensland. I also celebrated the McDonald family and acknowledged their effort, and also Robert Rossiter and Allan Parker.
Tonight I want to move on to another person on the coast, and that is Peter Ridd, who is a celebrated and award-winning scientist, who has earned the respect of many people around the world as a scientist. He has said many times, with scientific proof, that the Great Barrier Brief is in fine shape. Sadly, because it has been turned into a political football and lies are being told about the reef, tourism is suffering. That means that the people of Queensland are hurting. So it's not just farmers and farming communities; it's also tourist communities in the north and in Central Queensland, and, in fact, tourism in the whole of Queensland.
The Great Barrier Reef is in fine shape. Cyclones come; cyclones go. The reef suffers; the reef recovers. It has periods of bleaching. In 2008, the reef in the southern portion bleached when there were record cold temperatures. But the Greens were not running around saying that we were expecting imminent catastrophic global freezing due to the use of hydrocarbon fuels—as some lunatics were in the 1970s. No; now it's global warming blamed on hydrocarbon fuels. In fact, it's nonsense. We have periods of cold and periods of warmth that are natural and cyclical and which affect the whole of the reef in various parts at a time.
Speaking of the coast, I also want to celebrate the work of Timmsy—Rodney Timms of Innisfail, a fisherman. He's finding the coast is locked up, not only by the UN dictates and the UN policies that are being implemented by state and national Liberal and Labor governments but also by excessive bureaucracy in Queensland. And that same bureaucracy is creeping down to New South Wales, where I've also met with fishermen who have been suffering under this oppression. I also want to acknowledge the work of a friend of mine, the late Bill Izard, who was fighting the bureaucrats for many, many years in North Queensland.
This is a vital, natural, renewable resource—fish. They swim through our waters and then swim up into Papua New Guinea. Yet, as Maurice Newman, the well-respected businessman, has said, and as Keith De Lacy, the former Treasurer of Queensland has said, when these fish swim into our waters, we're not allowed to touch them; when they swim out of our waters and into Papua New Guinea, they get caught and sold back to us! So we're doing people out of work because of a UN dictate, and we're destroying an industry in our state because of that. And it's absolutely stupid and there's no evidence for it.
Walter Starck is a well-known and well-respected marine biologist working out of Townsville at the moment; he's an American with many years' experience around the world and particularly in North Queensland. He says that the sustainable catch of fish in parts of the Barrier Reef is—listen to this—1,500 kilograms per square kilometre per year. And the actual catch is 0.9 of a kilogram.
We are being locked up by the UN, with complicity from the Labor-Liberal duopoly that has governed this country exclusively for 60 years, and the people who are paying the price for this idiocy are the everyday Australians who have a job, or who had a job, and taxpayers. Who caused the problems? Liberal-Labor governments. Who pays? The people pay. This is theft of opportunity from our people. We are destroying—government is destroying—the productive capacity of our country. It is a national disaster. And we need, as I said last night, restoration of, or compensation for the theft of, property rights along the coast and also in farmlands—restoration or compensation.
Road Safety
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (19:29): I'm pleased to make my second contribution in this 46th Parliament about the very important issue of road safety. Currently we're in the process of re-establishing the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety under the guidelines of the parliament. Along with the member for Wide Bay, Lew O'Brien, we're looking forward to a good number of representatives both from the other chamber and senators joining that group. Next Friday, 1 August, we will host a signing ceremony in Parliament House with a dignitary, a road safety ambassador. It will be an opportunity to be seen actively supporting road safety, signing a pledge and hopefully distributing that on your Facebook pages to show your electorates and constituents your concern and support for road safety.
There have been a couple of positives since the group has been formed. We have been successful in getting the government to have an assistant minister with responsibility for road safety. The opposition has a shadow assistant for road safety—important steps, but not going far enough, in my view. We are still awaiting the government's official response to the excellent report of John Crozier and Jeremy Woolley—two fine, dedicated people in the area of road safety. One is an academic researcher and one is a surgeon who tells a chilling story of his weekend's work, if you like, in the trauma centres in his hospital. They are important steps but still do not go far enough. We are still waiting for the department to announce a review of governance which it undertook with urgency but still hasn't reported on.
We will be interested to see on how the new Office of Road Safety will contribute. The objectives are fine. The key objective is that the Office of Road Safety is to provide national leadership in eliminating road trauma in Australia. The office will operate as a primary policy adviser to federal ministers for road safety matters relating to safer roads, vehicles, speeds and people, and will draw together interdisciplinary expertise and experience to learn, share and channel efforts towards proven approaches to reducing national road trauma and, in doing so, will work collaboratively with counterpart agencies across the states and territories—all very positive stuff.
But let's get down to the nitty-gritty of the state of our roads across Australia. If we look at the statistics produced by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, we are not doing well. We are not doing well at all. My own state of South Australia has had an increase in deaths of 57.9 per cent in the 12 months to June—from 38 to 60. That's the number, the chilling statistical number of actual deaths. The state of Victoria has gone from 100 deaths to 158, a 58 per cent increase. Looking right across the country, we have had a 13.8 per cent increase in deaths.
As I have said so many times in this chamber, unfortunately, the actual reality of a death is quantifiable. It is quantifiable in terms of the cost to insurance, is quantifiable in terms of costs of assessment of emergency services, is quantifiable in terms of a funeral. Families get on and deal with it; they keep that with them forever but it is discreet. But if you look at these being the particulars to the actual trauma and tragedy, what about the serious injuries? The serious injuries go on for a lifetime. They affect our spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They affect every jurisdiction in motor accident compensation payments. They affect every motorist in the way they pay their compulsory third-party insurance or no-fault insurance or whatever the jurisdiction within which they are covered operates.
This is a national emergency in the quantifiable amount of money spent and in the awful trauma and tragedy shared by the families who are unfortunate enough to experience this sort of thing. Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, you would be aware of the tragedy of a young girl killed outside a restaurant by an errant motorist in very recent times. This is happening every day. If we can do things to stop it, we should do. The federal parliament is well-placed to lead. We should act urgently, get on and do more.
Aged Care
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:34): I rise tonight to speak on the need for staff-to-resident ratios in aged care. In Australia there are currently no federal requirements for staff ratios in residential care. I am pleased to see the Queensland government moving to address this issue, and I will look on with interest to see where they land. There are also no requirements for aged-care facilities to have a mix of skilled and unskilled staff. We know that residential aged-care facilities are increasingly relying on personal care attendants to provide direct care to residents.
The proportion of registered nurses providing direct care to aged-care residents decreased from 21 per cent in 2003, to 14 per cent in 2016. At the same time, more older Australians with complex needs are entering aged-care facilities than ever before. The National Aged Care Staffing and Skills Mixed Project Report of 2016, commissioned by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, found that the amount of care required to ensure safe residential and restorative care for residents is four hours and 18 minutes per day; however, the current national average of care provided to residents is two hours and 50 minutes per day. These statistics show that, currently, staffing levels in many residential facilities are not sufficient to provide a safe environment for residents. Older Australians deserve better.
One of the ways we could significantly improve the current situation for residents is by adopting staff-to-resident ratios. Research has shown that total staffing levels impact on the quality of the care and the quality of life that residents experience. It also shows that inadequate staff numbers contribute to mis-care and that residents are most likely to miss out on rehabilitative and social care. The introduction of ratios could also reduce unsafe work practices, where chronic understaffing practices are leading to compromised care levels. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation has also suggested that costs associated with increasing staffing levels could be offset by a reduction in ambulance transfers and hospital admissions.
We already have mandated staff-to-client ratios in hospitals and in childcare centres. In the acute care sector, minimum staffing requirements have been shown to prevent adverse incidents, reduce mortality and prevent re-admissions. These have the ability to cut healthcare costs. Why not introduce similar ratios into aged-care settings—of course relevant to each of those particular residential facilities. The federation recently released its national aged-care survey for 2019. The survey showed that aged-care staff also agree that the staff numbers are too low in aged-care facilities. It found that 75 per cent of staff members believed that the ratio of registered nurses to other staff was inadequate.
Another way that we could benefit the residents in aged-care facilities is by having a minimum number of registered nurses in each facility. The Senate inquiry into the quality of care in residential aged-care facilities in Australia recommended that residential aged-care facilities provide a minimum of one registered nurse to be on site at all times—in other words, 24/7. An ideal skills mix for facilities would ensure safe and restorative care is provided to residents.
In the midst of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, we are hearing horrific accounts of residents who are neglected and suffering from poor care standards. Over the past 13 years there has been a 400 per cent increase in preventable deaths of older Australians in aged care. We know that the current staffing levels in many residential aged-care facilities are not sufficient to ensure safe and quality aged care. We are strongly in favour of minimum staffing ratios in aged-care facilities, which must be determined according to the needs of the residents of each facility. This will ensure that we can be proud of our aged-care system in this country, and we can be assured that our loved ones are being adequately cared for when they eventually have to enter residential aged care.
Senate adjourned at 19:39