The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
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:
Community Affairs References Committee—private briefing today, from 4.30 pm.
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—public meeting on Thursday, 12 September 2019, from 5 pm.
Effectiveness of the Australian Government's Northern Australia agenda—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Thursday, 19 September 2019, from 10.30 am.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—from 9.40 am—
Wednesday, 11 September 2019.
Wednesday, 18 September 2019.
Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—from 1 pm—
Thursday, 12 September 2019.
Thursday, 19 September 2019.
Thursday, 17 October 2019.
Thursday, 14 November 2019.
Thursday, 28 November 2019.
Thursday, 5 December 2019.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) and public meetings—
Tuesday, 10 September 2019.
Wednesday, 11 September 2019.
Thursday, 12 September 2019.
Tuesday, 17 September 2019.
Wednesday, 18 September 2019.
Thursday, 19 September 2019.
Tuesday, 15 October 2019.
Wednesday, 16 October 2019.
Thursday, 17 October 2019.
Tuesday, 26 November 2019.
Wednesday, 27 November 2019.
Thursday, 28 November 2019.
Tuesday, 3 December 2019.
Wednesday, 4 December 2019.
Thursday, 5 December 2019.
Jobs for the Future in Regional Areas—Select Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—from 1 pm—
Wednesday, 11 September 2019.
Wednesday, 18 September 2019.
Wednesday, 16 October 2019.
Wednesday, 13 November 2019.
Wednesday, 27 November 2019.
Wednesday, 4 December 2019.
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—from 10 am—
Wednesday, 11 September 2019.
Wednesday, 18 September 2019.
Wednesday, 16 October 2019.
Wednesday, 27 November 2019.
Wednesday, 4 December 2019.
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—private briefing on Thursday, 12 September 2019, from 11.30 am.
The PRESIDENT (10:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Victoria
The PRESIDENT (10:01): I inform the Senate that Senator Fifield resigned his place as a senator for the state of Victoria on 16 August 2019. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the Constitution, the Governor-General notified the Governor of Victoria of the vacancy in the representation of that state caused by this resignation. I table copies of the letter of resignation and the letter to the Governor of Victoria.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:02): I move:
That general business order of the day No. 29, National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2), be considered today at the time for private senators' bills.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2)
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (10:02): I rise with great pleasure to speak on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2). This is the sixth time, over 10 years, that the Greens have introduced a bill for a federal anticorruption body. We are hopeful that today this bill will pass the Senate. Clearly it's long overdue. There have been a litany of examples of dodgy conduct that I personally consider to be corrupt conduct and that there is no body to independently investigate federally. Looking around the country, every state or territory now has an anticorruption body except us here in Canberra. You'd have to be living under a rock to think that there's nothing to see and there's no need for this body. For 10 years we've been pushing for this. It's clearly needed. You just have to look at the recent scandals and the influence of big money on politics more generally to know that an anticorruption body is desperately needed and is going to be very busy indeed.
As I said, for 10 years we've been pushing for this. Initially we were laughed at and ridiculed. It was said: 'There's no corruption. There's nothing to see.' Well, LOL. I think no-one in the community shares that view. They all know. In fact, 85 per cent of people think that politicians are corrupt. So, folks, we've got a problem here. We've got a problem with the actual level of corruption and we've got a problem with the perceptions of the level of corruption. We need to address both of those issues. Having a federal independent anticorruption body—or a national integrity commission, as I've titled it—could help not only address the underlying issues but restore people's confidence in our democracy and turn around those 85 per cent of people who think we're all corrupt. It could demonstrate that we are not acting in our private interest and we're not on the take from donors, vested interests and lobbyists but actually we're here to make decisions for the public interest, for the community's good and for the sake of the planet. I think that's what our Australian community deserves. This is a plan for a national integrity commission. My colleague in the House, the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, will be similarly introducing this once more to the House today.
I want to pay tribute to former senator Bob Brown, former senator Lee Rhiannon and former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, who've all had a strong role to play over those 10 years in trying to put legislation before this parliament for an anticorruption body. As I was saying, initially everybody laughed at us but, as seems to be the pace of history, eventually everyone's come on board.
I am really pleased that about 2½ years ago the Labor Party changed their mind and said, 'Yes, we agree. We need to do something about this. We need a federal anticorruption body.' We welcome that. And even this government last November finally agreed that rather than this being a fringe issue, as the Prime Minister had then described it, the Australian people deserved a federal anticorruption body. This is wonderful news.
The key parties here, and many on the crossbench—and I will come to them and I welcome their support as well—all agree something needs to happen, but how long are the Australian people going to have to wait? It has been 10 years now. They shouldn't have to wait another 10 years for us to actually see some action.
The government put out a discussion paper last November. It's been widely criticised as too weak, not having a broad enough scope of powers, not having the ability to conduct hearings in public and not being properly resourced. So, yes, it's been criticised as being very weak. We have concerns about that. But what's happened since then? Absolutely nothing. We have seen no movement on it at all. It is not even on the list of legislation that this government wants to pass through the House, or even introduce to the House, this year. The government is signalling that this is not a priority for them.
If you say you want something done, you can't just then do nothing. You should act on it. We are giving the parliament the chance today to deliver on the principles, that you all say you're committed to, for an anticorruption body. Here is a model that has been widely scrutinised. It's gone to inquiry. It has the support of a cohort of former judges who have been lobbying and advocating in this space for a strong anticorruption body.
Some of the key features of this model are that it could conduct hearings in public. That would be at the discretion of the commissioner. One of the strong principles, and one of the success stories of the various state ICACs around the country, or corruption commissions—call them what you may—has been the deterrent effect. If people know that they might get caught out there is a strong disincentive away from corrupt conduct. So the ability for these hearings to be held in public is a very important strength of this model. The government's model, of course, wants to do it all in secret. That's not going to make a difference to anyone at all. Having public hearings is absolutely crucial. Having the body well-resourced and independent is also crucial.
There are various other moves afoot today, that we will come to in motions, for the Senate to look at this conduct itself—well and good, but actually we need an independent body to investigate the litany of dodgy transactions and dodgy dealings that I will go through shortly. So the key features include public hearings and an independent body that is properly resourced. We want this body do have the powers of a royal commission. It needs to be able to compel evidence. It would then make findings of fact that could go to the criminal courts for proper prosecution. This is a model that is watertight. The experts agree that this is what's needed. It's a strong model. It's independent. It would be properly resourced. This could get the job done.
I am yet to come up against any specific concerns with this bill except maybe, 'We don't want to vote for a Greens' bill or gee the timing is poor.' Well, sorry folks, that's not going to fly. The Australian people deserve a democracy that works for them and they deserve to have confidence that politicians are not acting corruptly, acting with conflicts of interest or receiving donations that are then influencing the decisions they take. The public deserve a democracy that actually works for them and this body can help deliver that.
I want to go through some of the quite sobering examples in recent times of why this body is needed—and I may well run out of time because there are so many of them! We've got the revolving door of lobbyists and politicians. In fact, within that cooling off period even former ministers, in breach of the ministerial standards, go off to work for the very bodies that they are meant to have been regulating. It's pretty clear that the ministerial standards are not being upheld and that there is no mechanism to enforce them being upheld. That's the revolving lobbying door that we have been banging on about for an awfully long time.
We have examples like 'nanny-gate' with our dear old Minister Dutton, the member for Dickson, which is in my home state of Queensland, who's prepared to do favours for mates and let their au pairs come in but won't do any justice for a Tamil family in Biloela who are desperate to return to their adopted community—to a community who love and want them—where they were working, contributing and raising their children who were born here. Minister Dutton won't do them any favours. He won't use his discretion to help those meritorious folk, but he's happy to do a favour for a mate who wants an au pair to come in and help out with childcare work. Again, there are double standards and it's something that could potentially keep a federal anticorruption body very busy.
You then have the Paladin scandal where massive contracts were awarded to a two-bit company that has barely any track record and a shack on Kangaroo Island to run the security procedures in our offshore detention hell holes. Again, how on earth could that happen? It harks back to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation—another very small organisation, meritorious though it may be, that suddenly got a huge whack of dough. It didn't ask for it. There was no tender process and no scrutiny, and suddenly it's doing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's job. The government has effectively privatised the management and protection of the reef through giving a huge amount of money—almost half a billion dollars—to a private organisation to do, in my view, what is the government's work. The board of that organisation is stacked with pro fossil fuel operatives.
There are so many examples. Just look at Ministers Frydenberg and Taylor. We have indeed been looking at them through various other means. There is not only the dodgy sale of water in the Murray-Darling Basin but also the interference in threatened species protection—the listing for the grasslands near the member for Hume's personal residence and his interference to see if that listing could be removed so that a company, which he has some shareholding in, won't be investigated further or prosecuted and he can then clear with impunity, and perhaps some others can do the same too. Favours for mates, whether they be fellow politicians or whether they be donors—it's got to stop; it's not right. And, if 85 per cent of people think that politicians are corrupt, you have to ask why on earth we don't have a body to oversight this sort of conduct and send a clear message that politicians need to stop looking out for their private interests; they've got to start acting in the public interest. We get well paid enough. We shouldn't need further kickbacks from donors or promises of future jobs. We should be here doing what's best for the community, for the public interest and for the planet. This body is so desperately needed. I've outlined how the features could really not only clean up politics but send a strong deterrent message against corruption.
The flipside to this is that we desperately need donations reform. The influence of big money on our politics is hideous. This isn't America and yet we have $100 million in donations from large corporates that have been made to both sides of politics since 2012. Is it any wonder that the community think that they don't matter anymore and that politicians just feather their own nest or do favours for their donors? It's because that's what happens. We saw our mining tax law change because of the influence of the mining industry. We saw them topple a Prime Minister. That's going back six or seven years ago now. We've seen other pay-for-access, pay-for-policy outcomes, and that is just heartbreaking. We are so blessed in Australia to have a democracy. Let's make it work properly. Let's get the influence of big money out of the decision-making process and actually start doing our jobs properly. This ICAC would be a strong part of that, and we will continue to work for donations reform like we've been similarly doing for 10 years.
We've had fruitful discussions with folk. I really am optimistic and hopeful that today we will see this bill pass the Senate. It would be a really wonderful day for democracy if the Senate could send a message to the House that, actually, politics should be above private interests. Politics should be about acting in the public interest—in the public interest of the planet and the community. That's our opportunity today. We will see how the votes fall. I don't expect we'll get support from the government on this one, because they've proposed a very weak body. Clearly, they were dragged to the table pre-election, trying to get this off the agenda. They put out a discussion paper—not even a draft bill; just a mere discussion paper—that has been so roundly condemned by anyone who knows anything about this as an absolute toothless tiger. In fact, it's been said that a weak anticorruption commission would be worse than no anticorruption commission at all.
The government want to have two new criminal offences created of criminal corruption. They are pretty cool with standard, run-of-the-mill corruption; they want this new 'worst of the worst' offence of criminal corruption to be created. And that's all their body can investigate—not all the dodginess, the conflicts of interest and the misuse of personal influence that are happening at the minute, which our body can look at; not any breaches of ministerial standards or codes of conduct, which this body could look at; just this 'worst of the worst' criminal corruption.
Of course, they would only have hearings in secret—the public wouldn't know about this; I can't see there being much of a disincentive there—and the body isn't even resourced as fully as their own department recommended that it should be. And where is it? We've seen no progress whatsoever. We've had the election. You won. Where is the body? You promised that this was happening; in February you said it was imminent. Well, it is September now, and we've seen absolutely nothing.
So part of the reason for today's bill is that we have been patient for 10 years and we're out of it; we actually want this done now. We've got a model that stands up to scrutiny, that could do the job, and that I hope the government will actually vote for. If you're not going to vote for it, then at least fix your own bill up and adopt some of these features which I hope the Senate will endorse today—and certainly the experts have endorsed—to make this body a useful one that will start to restore the confidence the Australian people deserve to have in our democracy.
So it's been a long time coming. I hope this bill passes today. If it doesn't, well, we'll just reintroduce it again. We are not going to give up on this. The Australian people deserve a democracy that works for them. They deserve to have people in this building making decisions in the interests of the public and the planet, not in the interests of their own future employment or the re-election coffers of their party. I mentioned the $100 million of donations from big corporates to both sides of politics already. When you look at the breakdown of that figure, there was $5 million from fossil fuel companies over the last four years. Is it any wonder that we have pathetically weak climate policy and no climate laws. You get what you pay for in this building, and that is an absolute travesty. It's no wonder that 85 per cent of people think politicians are corrupt.
Queensland is on fire at the moment—a week out of winter. This is why we need strong climate laws. This is why we need the influence of fossil fuel money off these decision-makers. This is why we need a federal anticorruption body to make sure that people in here are acting in the best interests of the planet and the community, not in the best interests of their donors or the lobbyists that they have met with.
I'm looking forward to the vote on this. I've talked about some of the scandals. Sadly, they are not limited to the government benches; there has been unsatisfactory conduct from both sides of politics. In fact, just last week at the New South Wales ICAC we saw a scandal where donations were made in an Aldi shopping bag in an attempt to avoid the ban on property developer donations. Again, the New South Wales ICAC has been a very busy organisation—as has the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission and many of the anticorruption bodies around the states. It is foolish to think that we don't need a body like this at the federal level. I am pleased that everyone now agrees that we need one, but we need to see some action. It's past time for talk and it's past time for a weak, toothless model that won't fix any of this conduct.
The Australian people really do deserve better; this is not just a line. We are meant to be taking decisions in their best interests. If we don't have a body like this, how do you expect to turn around the perception that politicians are in it for themselves? I hope that people in here are driven by the public interest. Let's actually put some proof to that. Let's demonstrate that by supporting this bill today. We have a strong model. We have hope that this bill will pass today. The pressure is then on the government. Are they going to keep turning a blind eye to all of these scandals that keep mounting—in recent times, mostly on their side?
If you vote against this the Australian public will ask: 'What are you trying to hide?' And they would be right to ask that. There have been so many breaches lately; you can't swing a cat without coming across another scandal. Scandals that previously would have toppled ministers—of their own volition, they would have said, 'I'll stand down. This is too embarrassing for the edifice of parliament, too embarrassing for the government'—are now just swept under the carpet and they try and carry on as if it doesn't really matter. Well, government standards might have dropped but public standards haven't. If we want to engage people in this precious democracy of theirs and if we want to deliver decisions that are good for them and advance their interests, then we need to restore that confidence that decisions are made in their interests and we need an anticorruption body to do that.
So it's with great pleasure that I speak on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2), the sixth in a long line of bills to establish an important body. I am very much looking forward to the vote today. I urge the parties that I've had fruitful discussions with over the winter break to support this bill. If they do, it will pass this place, and what a wonderful outcome that will be and what pressure that will then create on the government to do a decent job. They could even vote for this version—I would welcome that—or they could at least strengthen their own very, very weak version, which we've seen neither hide nor hair of for almost the last year. There have been 10 years of their saying this wasn't needed, a brief moment of their saying, 'Sure, we'll do something,' and then something widely condemned as just massively weak and toothless and worse than doing nothing at all. Here's your chance to get some suggestions. Vote for this or at least lift some of the good ideas in it and adopt them in your bill. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (10:20): I rise to speak on the private senator's bill put forward by Senator Waters today, the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2). We've reached an important moment in this place. There is at the very least bipartisan support for a national integrity commission. Now that we've reached that bipartisan point, the Greens don't quite know what to do with themselves. They could choose to support the government's model, which was announced almost a year ago and addresses the heart of people's concerns, but that would be to acknowledge the work of the Morrison government in creating a model for advancing this issue. Importantly, this model has the prospect of standing the test of time. It's got the potential to get the kind of across-the-aisle support that means it could stand the test of time rather than becoming the kind of political football that the Australian Greens like so much. But with them it's always 'My way or the highway', without engaging with the merits of the CIC, the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, or accepting the drawbacks of their proposed bill.
To more cynical minds it might seem like the Greens are using this bill as nothing more than yet another cheap shot at the government. In their dissenting report attached to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report into the national integrity package of bills, the Greens resort to nitpicking about the $104.5 million over the forward estimates and the approximately 93 staff allocated to it. While that was within the range of appropriate resources recommended by the department, it wasn't at the very top of the range. That's not good enough for them. When it comes to the Greens party, more is always more when it comes to money. With the $150 million that they propose should be allocated to their National Integrity Commission, they don't bother even for a moment saying what the source of that funding will be. As usual, the money just comes from the ether with the Australian Greens. But the taxpayers can't be treated like their pockets are bottomless pits, and, to his credit, Treasurer Frydenberg respects that. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will receive a total of $145.2 million in funding over its first three years, with $2.2 million worth of funding in the 2019-20 year to reconstitute the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity as the CIC's law enforcement integrity division, and a rolling-in of ACLEI's existing budget of $40.7 million.
What's great about the government's model for the CIC—and this is really important, Madam Deputy President—is that it learns the lessons of the flaws of the state anticorruption and integrity bodies, because they are deeply flawed in a way that has caused substantial harm in recent years. The new law enforcement integrity division will have a significantly expanded jurisdiction to that which ACLEI currently has. It will cover several additional agencies—those that exercise the most significant coercive powers and therefore present the most significant potential corruption risk. These agencies include the ACCC, APRA, ASIC, the ATO and the Department of Agriculture. All of these are in addition to the bodies that ACLEI and the Integrity Commissioner already cover, including the AFP, AUSTRAC and the Department of Home Affairs, including Border Force.
The law enforcement integrity division will have the same functions and powers as ACLEI, meaning it will have the discretion to hold public hearings where it thinks it's appropriate to do so. Labor and the Greens have made much of the CIC public sector integrity division's inability to hold public hearings. A survey conducted by the Australia Institute earlier this year found that the two statutory powers with the lowest public support that could be given to an anticorruption commission were (1) the power to compel people to provide evidence and (2) the power to hold public hearings.
A significant number of people in our community recognise the shortcomings of existing state based integrity bodies in relation to public hearings. Most significantly, New South Wales ICAC removes the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination. Witnesses there are forced to testify against their will under the threat of criminal sanction, and the risk of irreparable reputational damage, irrespective of whether or not there is a finding of wrongdoing, is alarmingly high. A political opponent or the media can, and do, use a witness's mere testimony before a public corruption hearing as a tool to discredit them, even if the evidence against that person was that they had done nothing wrong or, indeed, they had done things that would never ever reach the standards required to convict them in a criminal court.
There is no consideration in this bill given to providing due process to innocent witnesses who are brought before a commission to contribute their accounts. The protections afforded by the traditional justice system, like the right to silence, are valued because of their rigour, not because of the ease with which they allow convictions to be secured. They serve as a check on the inherent imbalance of power between the individual and the state, ensuring that the freedom of an individual accused of a crime can be compromised only if a case is actually proven against them.
Although anticorruption commissions can't put people in jail, the distinction between an adverse finding by a corruption agency and a court conviction is likely to be lost on many people in our community. In terms of reputational damage, a finding of corrupt conduct by a watchdog like the ICAC may well be career ending in circumstances where it simply isn't justified. Those who are brought before the New South Wales ICAC and other state integrity commissions are protected by fewer safeguards than a person who is undergoing a routine police interview. That can't be something that meets the pub test.
The government will not allow the CIC to devolve into a kangaroo court, subject to the whims of opportunistic individuals or organisations, as we have seen time and time again when it comes to state integrity commissions. Importantly, members of the public will still be able to make complaints relating to the public sector to existing integrity agencies, such as the Ombudsman, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, IPEA, and the AFP. These agencies will be able to refer any appropriate matters to the CIC. This is important because it enables the CIC to focus on legitimate complaints of corrupt conduct. Allowing direct public referrals, as is proposed in the Greens bill, risks an influx of vexatious or frivolous complaints, and that reflects ACLEI's current experience in 98 per cent of cases. So there is good justification for having that early filter process.
We will also not repeat another of the key flaws of state agencies by enabling the public sector integrity division to make public findings of corruption without having to follow fundamental justice processes. Instead, matters of potential criminal conduct will be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for proper assessment for prosecution by the courts. That's the right thing to do in terms of process, and it's also the right thing to do in making sure that those who have done the wrong thing face the full force of the law.
I've made no secret of my thoughts on the need for the proposed National Integrity Commission but, in doing so, we've got to remember that, while there's always room for improvement, Transparency International ranks Australia's government as among the least corrupt of any country in the world and it has been that way for many years. We're currently ranked 13th in the world in Transparency International's global rankings out of 180 countries. Would I like to see us higher in the rankings? Absolutely. But let's not forget that 13th is a significant achievement. It has remained consistent since 2015.
The first words of my maiden speech last year were:
Australians don't trust politicians.
And I still think that's true. Australians do have a healthy scepticism of politicians and of democracy generally. The Greens cite this lack of trust in their push for their version of the National Integrity Commission and I commend them for at least having an interest in restoring faith. But to do as Senator Water's bill proposes—to drag the people before the court of public opinion without many of the protections that we regard as basic to the protection of the individual from the state—would cause more harm than good when it comes to restoring Australian's trust and confidence in the political system.
To acknowledge that there might be a trust problem doesn't mean that the bill which has been proposed by the Greens is the answer to that problem. Indeed, it could very well intensify the problem. We need to be alive to that risk and consider it in light of both the potential for it to do good or the potential for it to do harm. There are many other ways by which we can work to address the trust deficit, not least through the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. This government has undertaken extensive public consultation on the proposed model. We received 78 submissions during the consultation process. We should also note that there are many existing government processes that give Australians a direct avenue to air their concerns and their grievances with the way public administration is operated to ensure its integrity. There are no less than 12 agencies at the Commonwealth level that currently have responsibility for ensuring integrity in the processes of government. In addition to that, we have a range of parliamentary committees whose job it is to scrutinise proposed laws, to hold government activities to account and to canvass public opinion on matters that are important to the Australian people. To establish yet another body with the power to be itself a tyrant, just as the ICAC in New South Wales has right to the point where the High Court of this country has reprimanded it for its abuse of power and its reckless tarnishing of reputations with nowhere near sufficient evidence, would not be the answer. Open and honest dialogue: that's how we rebuild our relationship with the Australian people. It's not by dragging out the debate on what a national integrity commission should look like—a debate that the longer we carry on about, the less faith, ironically, we can expect Australians to have in the final product.
I ask my colleagues in the Senate to reject this bill and to support the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. It is well-resourced, it is subject to proper processes and it will be effective in such a way as to ensure that all Australians can be confident in their elected representatives and in the public officials who are charged with the duty of giving effect to the work of this place.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (10:34): I don't think that it could be doubted by anyone who participates in politics at the moment that trust in politics in Australia, and across the world, is at an all-time low. Everywhere we look we see evidence of that, whether it be disengagement from the political process, the kind of abuse that is regularly meted out on all sides of politics over social media or the rise of fringe third parties at elections. All of those things are indications that trust in politics is at a serious low. So, for that reason, the time for a national integrity commission in Australia has never been greater. I don't believe, as some advocates of an integrity commission believe, that simply creating a national integrity commission will be a magic wand and will immediately fix the lack of trust in Australian politics, but I certainly believe, and Labor believes, that establishing a national integrity commission is a fundamental plank in what is needed to restore trust in Australian politics.
As we could have expected, Senator Waters in her speech took the opportunity to throw her usual insults about Labor when it comes to integrity matters, so I'd like to remind Senator Waters and anyone who's watching this debate that Labor has had a proud record in driving integrity in government for many decades, well before the Greens party even existed. In my own home state of Queensland, of course, politics over the last 20 or 30 years has been defined by the response to the Fitzgerald inquiry, established by the then National Party government but which trawled over the obscene corruption that we saw in the Liberal and National Party governments in Queensland over a 20- or 30-year period. As a result of that inquiry, Labor, under the leadership of Wayne Goss, put forward incredible integrity moves, incredible anticorruption moves, that survive in Queensland to this day. It's hard to believe that until the early 1990s, when Labor, under Wayne Goss, was elected, Queensland didn't have any sort of corruption body, didn't have freedom of information processes for people to access information about what government was doing and didn't even have estimates committees of its parliament with which to hold government ministers and the government generally to account. All of those things—a corruption commission, FOI laws, estimates hearings and many, many other integrity measures—were introduced by the Goss Labor government and remain in Queensland to this day.
At a federal level, Labor has championed donations reform and is still waiting for the government to come around to our position that donation thresholds should be reduced drastically so that people do know who is donating to politics, whether it be to the Liberals, to the Nationals, to Labor, to the Greens or to any other party, but still we are waiting for the government to come around on that. In government, federal Labor also brought in stronger FOI laws, whistleblower protection and a range of other anticorruption measures. So driving integrity in government is absolutely part of Labor's DNA.
In contrast, unfortunately we have seen and continue to see the Liberals and the Nationals in government oppose various integrity measures, such as the donations reform that I was talking about, stronger whistleblower protections and, of course, the establishment of the very integrity body that we are debating today. I do recognise that, under public pressure, late last year the government finally accepted that we did need to have some kind of integrity commission at a federal level, but, of course, what the government is putting forward falls well short of what this parliament should deem acceptable and what the Australian people deem acceptable. Only last week, Geoffrey Watson, the former counsel assisting the New South Wales ICAC, who was a director of the Centre for Public Integrity, wrote an opinion piece about an integrity commission. He described the coalition's proposal, the government's proposal, as 'a joke'. He described it as:
Toothless, spineless, and secretive—it would have no power to examine the activities of politicians or those close to them. ... It also—laughably—prevents the investigation of corruption in the past, with the consequence of protecting crooked politicians from any examination of their misdeeds.
He concluded by saying:
The Coalition’s proposal is not a real anti-corruption agency; it is a sham. It would be worse than having no commission at all.
Over the course of this debate we have heard government senators like Senator Stoker, who just spoke, get up and talk about how committed the federal government is to an anticorruption commission and how their model is superior. Don't listen to what I've got to say about this by any means, if you don't want to, but just listen to someone like Geoffrey Watson, who's been at the coalface of fighting corruption for a very long time. He describes the government's model as a joke and a sham, and that is not where we should be heading. In the end, the reason that the Morrison government is taking this position is that it fundamentally hates the idea of being held accountable for its actions. That's why the Morrison government has been slithering around on this important issue, trying to avoid making any real commitments.
Labor has been talking about the need for a national integrity commission since January 2018—well before the last election—when we announced our commitment to establish such a body. We in Labor made it clear that while we were not proposing to draft, from opposition, the legislation that would establish that body, we had been consulting extensively with legal and integrity experts and examining the pros and cons of the various state models. From that work we arrived at seven basic design principles for the proposed body, which we were committed to establishing.
When we made that announcement in June 2018, we invited the Turnbull government to work with us on this initiative. After Prime Minister Turnbull was overthrown and removed from office by his ambitious friends—the member for Dickson and the current Prime Minister—we then made the same offer to the Morrison government to work with us on establishing a national integrity body that actually had real teeth, because we in Labor know that corruption is something that harms us all, and it harms our nation.
As I've already said: the public's trust in politics and our institutions is at an all-time low. While there are many factors that have led to this erosion of public confidence, there is no doubt that corruption in government will only further entrench that mistrust.
Every single state in Australia now has anticorruption bodies, and Labor went to the May election promising to establish such a body at the federal level. Finally, in December last year, the Morrison government announced that it would backflip on its previous claims that a national integrity commission was not necessary or that a national integrity commission was, as the Prime Minister described it, a 'fringe issue'. Suddenly, having sniffed the public mood and becoming aware of their ongoing embarrassment about having rejected a need for a banking royal commission, until it was forced upon them, they were suddenly in favour of a national integrity commission. But we haven't heard anything from the government about it since—that was 10 months ago, and we still haven't seen an exposure draft of legislation from the Morrison government. As I've already said, experts in these matters describe the government's proposal as a sham and a joke. So much for the Morrison government's promise of action.
Having unexpectedly won office again, it seems the last thing this government wants is a national integrity commission to look at what they and their mates are doing behind closed doors. We acknowledge this bill, which was prepared by the former independent member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, and is being presented to this parliament by the Greens party, is not perfect, but the integrity commission that would be established by this bill is incomparably better than the sham version of an integrity commission that the Morrison government proposed when it was finally dragged kicking and screaming, in December last year, to support one. It is because the need for a national integrity commission is now so urgent, and because the Morrison government has made clear that it only wants a sham of a national integrity commission so that it can pretend it is doing something about corruption in government, that Labor is willing to support the passage of the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) through the Senate.
The Morrison government has to wake up to reality. The Australian people want a national integrity commission and our country would benefit from having one. The Morrison government also has to understand that the Australian people want a real national integrity commission—not the kind of sham and not the kind of joke that Geoffrey Watson describes the government's proposal as—a commission with independence and with the powers and the resources needed to stamp out corruption in government and the federal public sector. The Australian people want a watchdog with real teeth rather than some kind of obedient lapdog of the government, which seems to be what Mr Morrison and his cronies want.
As I've said: trust in politics and politicians is at historic lows in this country, and it's made worse every day by the chaos and cover-ups that have become the hallmark of this government. Labor is supporting this bill because it is time to do something about corruption in government at the federal level. As on so many issues of vital importance to this nation—from the economy to climate change to the need for an energy policy to the ever-rising cost of living—the Morrison government continues to pretend that there's no problem to deal with in relation to integrity and that a slogan will do in place of a policy. Labor supports this bill and calls on the Morrison government to do the same.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:45): As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to support the intent behind an ICAC. But I want to go into the matter of accountability, because the people of Australia do not hold federal parliament in high regard when it comes to the matter of accountability. It's something I realised before entering parliament, having had to deal with people from both sides of parliament in the upper house and the lower house—accountability is low or nonexistent in many places, and the people of Australia laugh at the people in this building. In my first speech, I mentioned that accountability was one of the areas I wanted to improve in this parliament. It's something that Senator Pauline Hanson has repeatedly stated—accountability, accountability, accountability. We see Labor in Queensland, Labor in New South Wales, Labor in Ipswich, Labor in many shire councils in Queensland and the Liberal Party in some councils in Queensland. We see Chinese donations. We don't get answers.
Last week and the week before, I was involved with a committee of inquiry looking at the post-retirement incomes of former ministers Bishop and Pyne. I interviewed, or questioned, the most senior bureaucrat in this country, who retired just a few hours later—Dr Martin Parkinson. After talking to us about the investigation he had done on behalf of the Prime Minister, repeatedly mentioning the word 'investigation', he admitted under my line of questioning that he had no investigation powers. The undertaking that ministers give to the Prime Minister on being appointed is simply an undertaking—unenforceable and uninvestigable. Accountability is low. I have seen it firsthand. That's why this building, in my opinion, is often the most damaging building in the country. It's because it has so much power over the people of Australia and doesn't work for the people of Australia.
I mention energy, immigration, taxation, multinationals not being taxed, the theft of property rights—these are fundamental, basic things that are being ignored, blown away, by the people in this parliament. We must get rid of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. I'll say it again: we must get rid of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. We see something is needed. Should it be internal? Should it be a matter of, as Ms Bishop stated last week, holding ministers accountable under legislation so they can be held accountable after they retire? Well, that's one way of doing it, and I would prefer to see something like that. But, having had introductory talks on that matter, I know it is difficult to do that. So that leaves us, then, with an external body that would be free of politics, would be legal and would be tight. That's what the people of Australia want—free of politics, legal and tight. My concern there, though, is that parliament could be used as a shield. But we have seen some instances of success with this in the state bodies, so it's worth exploring.
I want to compliment the Greens for raising this. There you are, people of Australia; I've actually complimented the Greens! It's not the first time. We will always compliment the Greens and work with the Greens when they come up with a sensible idea. Clearly, the people have lost faith in parliament and they tell us that. They tell One Nation that a lot, and they want us to do something about it. In fact, we see that parliament itself has lost faith in itself, because we see motion after motion requesting inquiries. Parliament has lost faith in itself. So I want to compliment the Greens because they're doing more here than just fabricating victims, which they normally do. The real victims of this corruption and this abuse of power in this building are the people of Australia.
But there is a very big 'but'. In fact, there are 17 'buts', and we put these fundamental questions to the Greens. We have received answers on some, but these questions came out of review by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. These are serious questions that people have asked about this bill, and they have largely gone unanswered, or else problems have been confirmed. So I want to go through those.
As I said, the intent behind this, to drive more accountability in parliament, is sound, but let's have a look at the execution. The person under investigation is not required to be informed that they are being investigated. That's fundamental. That's a deficiency. The Integrity Commission is being given the powers of a royal commission, but it is not a judicial investigation. It does not have the requisite legal staff to support the powers of a royal commission—another flaw. The commission will have no powers for telecommunications intercepts, surveillance devices and so on—another flaw.
Referrals of matters can be made by any person. No framework for specious or political referrals exists. There are no checks or balances on the referrals. This could be used politically outside the parliament as well as inside the parliament. Heads of Commonwealth agencies are required to make referrals to the commission where they believe corrupt conduct has occurred. That's fine. However, the definition of 'corrupt conduct' is so broad this whole section becomes unworkable. It may result in a known incident being buried in hundreds of specious incidents and claims. Remember, this is not me talking. This is from the reviews by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Those are real and serious questions.
No. 9—we like this one—is that the commission has the power to hold public meetings. That seems unpopular, but we think it's probably appropriate. No. 11 is that the commissioner appears to have the power to refuse a person's right to be represented before them. The Greens actually replied to this one, and they said, 'That's not always the case, but it is in some cases.'
The next matter is that the commissioner may order a person arrested and brought before the commission. That arrest does not need to be carried out by law enforcement—merely authorised persons. Sure, the Australian Federal Police could do that, but in the instances where it's not done by the Australian Federal Police it could undo the process. So that's questionable, and we need clarification there.
The next matter is that the bill allows persons other than police officers to execute search warrants, including powers to force entry and search in the absence of the suspect. There is no requirement on experience or qualifications of the commission's operators. Unless they are experienced, they could be prone to mistakes, and that could throw out the validity of the whole inquiry—the whole action.
The next matter I want to discuss is No. 15, the reversal of evidentiary burden of proof. The person under investigation has to raise evidence to disprove their guilt. There is no longer presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Greens say that people don't need that protection.
The next matter is that failing to appear after receiving a summons or failing to produce a document or thing is a strict liability offence carrying six months in jail. This takes out the ability to get sick or be geographically or financially unable to respond and also to appeal the order to hand over a document or item. The commissioner may give an extension, but they're pretty broad powers. That is item 16 raised by the two committees.
No. 17—the last one I'll talk about—is that members, including staff of the commission, are exempted from civil action from defamation and a group of civil remedies. They can literally do anything. They can lie or say anything about a person they wish, and they are good to go.
So we are caught here with something that is of sound intent but complicated and flawed in its execution. As I said, it has been reviewed by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It fundamentally goes against basic tenets of the law in our country. Our conclusion would be that we are caught in between the Greens bill that goes too far and undermines some fundamental principles of law in this country and creates a body that would embarrass the Stasi and, on the other hand, the government's proposal that investigates and reports in secret and only investigates matters referred to it by the government. Both are not acceptable: poor to the Left; poor to the Right.
What we see in this bill is sound intent destroyed, submerged and squashed by virtue signalling. The Greens are the squealing pigs of the Australian parliament. They talk about integrity but don't have integrity of using the science on climate change, which is now emasculating millions of people's economic welfare and future. It's based on a lie. They have never provided the evidence and yet they talk to us about the integrity of their climate claims. All they use is emotion and stories.
This is a political stunt. It is embarrassing that they try to foist this upon the people of this country. The Greens give more rights to illegals entering this country than they are giving in this bill to the people of our country. We won't stand for it. We will not support this bill until it is cleaned up and the intent is supported by the specific provisions. I want to repeat: One Nation are in favour of an ICAC or an external body to hold this parliament to account, but we are not in favour of this stunt.
We as a parliament must do things properly because time after time the government stuffs it up and the people pay. On energy the people pay. On the theft of property rights the people pay. On excessive immigration not only do the people pay financially but they are inconvenienced and our standards and values are destroyed. We ask the questions that people want asked in this parliament. We have the guts to say what people are really thinking. The people want accountability, not a sham. We want a proper ICAC, a proper external body, to hold the parliament and individual parliamentarians accountable. This bill does not do that adequately.
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (10:57): I rise this morning to talk on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2), a private senator's bill of the Australian Greens for establishing the National Integrity Commission. A private senator's bill moved by the Australian Greens to set up the National Integrity Commission should ring alarm bells everywhere, so I am very surprised that it sounds like Labor might be deciding this morning to support what is a very flawed proposition. The proposition of a national integrity commission is not flawed. The Morrison government supports it. Senator Roberts supports it. The Labor Party is on the record as supporting it.
What is very important in this debate and what has been demonstrated by the conduct of independent corruption commissions across this country already is that design is critical. Senator Waters in her opening remarks this morning said that you get what you pay for. I disagree. As legislators what the parliament gets is what it designs for. It is interesting that in the contributions of Senator Waters and Senator Watt this morning we have had not a skerrick about the detail of the design of this National Integrity Commission Bill. That should ring alarm bells for everyone.
Senator Roberts is correct to have gone to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's work on this matter. For those that aren't aware, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee is effectively responsible for calling out and protecting the civil liberties of Australians when it comes to the design of our laws. It's a committee that doesn't get much attention outside of this Senate chamber; its work probably deserves to get considerably more attention than it does. But Senator Roberts's contribution was correct insofar as it highlighted a number of those civil liberties issues that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee itself had found, and it detailed for the Senate what the Australian Greens' response was to some of those issues. It's worth reminding the Senate that, on those big issues—every civil liberty issue is, I think, a big issue—on some of the most substantive issues, the Greens either didn't respond or didn't provide a thorough response.
Senator Waters, in her contribution, said that we've had six bills and it's taken 10 years. That's actually a demonstration, and that actually makes my point, that the design of these national integrity commission bills has been so poor—and I would argue that this is just as poor—as to not warrant the support of this Senate. This is a private senator's bill. It is worth drawing to people's attention that, if it should pass today, it does not mean that a national integrity commission will be legislated, because it will be necessary, of course, for the bill to pass the House of Representatives. Australians who are concerned about civil liberties, Australians who are worried that their reputations might be heavily tarnished, can breathe a little easier, because it is unlikely that this poorly designed, flawed bill will become law. I do want to reiterate that the theme of a national integrity commission has been endorsed and agreed to; it is now a debate about the detail.
Senator Watt, in his very own contribution, said that this bill is not perfect. Who pays for an imperfect bill? Who pays for an imperfect legislative remedy? The citizen. I'll come back to how the citizen pays for this, and I don't mean in a financial sense; I mean in a reputational sense.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator DEAN SMITH: I hear Senator O'Neill, who has a very senior position in this parliament as the Chair of the Privileges Committee, interjecting. She should carry a heavier burden than other senators when it comes to the reputational damage that citizens pay for when a bill is poorly designed. I'm not speculating about the reputational damage; I will demonstrate the very real reputational damage, and what bodies of our country, like the Law Council, have to say about that.
These are serious matters. No-one supports corruption in our public system, in our civil society, in our community. But how we repel corruption, how we deal with corruption when it appears, is a very critical issue. I had cause to write about this issue the day that the Morrison government agreed, conceptually, to a national integrity commission. I was privileged to have my comments on this matter reported in TheAustralian Financial Review, in an opinion piece that I had penned, under the heading 'Australia is no place for show trials'. I want to share with the Senate some remarks that I made in that opinion piece on the very issue of a corruption commission, but more particularly on what are the very real consequences of poor design.
In that opinion piece, I remark—this goes to the third point of Senator Waters's contribution. Senator Waters's contribution alluded to only one contestable issue among many, many issues when it comes to the design of a national integrity commission. She didn't even examine the issue; she only alluded to one issue. That is the very real debate about public versus private hearings. I'll be very interested to hear what Labor senators have to say about public versus private hearings, because if they have nothing to say about the merits of public versus private hearings or vice versa then they've come into this chamber ill-prepared. They've developed a position to support this bill that is ill-prepared and ignores—they are being consciously, dangerously ignorant of—what I argued privately is one of the fundamental issues when it comes to the design of a national integrity commission.
The establishment of a national integrity commission was examined in a lot of detail in the last parliament. I think its report was released in the last few sitting weeks of the last parliament. I participated in that Senate select committee inquiry into a national integrity commission, which was very ably chaired by Labor Senator Jacinta Collins. That is a very considered report into some of the very real tensions and contested ideas about the design of an integrity commission. That was the basis of an opinion piece that I had written for the Financial Review.
Let me go to this very important point of public versus private hearings. In the Australian Financial Review, I wrote of public versus private hearings, which Senator Waters only alluded to in the briefest of ways:
This issue is so hotly contested the Senate inquiry couldn't settle on an agreed position and was forced to leave the matter open.
In evidence to the Senate inquiry, lawyers from Gilbert and Tobin argued both sides, but noted the potential costs associated with holding public hearings, particularly on the "privacy and reputation of individuals involved".
And just remember that part—'the privacy and reputation of individuals involved'. It's very possible that an individual is found not guilty of anything, but their privacy and reputation not just get tarnished but are irrevocably damaged. I went on to write:
The Law Council of Australia encouraged great caution around the use of public hearings, suggesting private hearings should be the default position and cited the risk of "irreparable damage" upon those unfairly implicated in corruption hearings.
Even the officer which holds the notorious—
That's my word, 'notorious'—
NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to account conceded public hearings left the community "confused" and could lead people to incorrectly conclude that functions of anti-corruption bodies were judicial proceedings.
This is not a trivial matter.
The danger with some independent corruption commissions in our country, and I put ICAC at No. 1 on the lead table in this regard, is that they have a perception of courts, but they are not a court. They do not uphold those longstanding criminal justice principles that many Australians take for granted and that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee exists to protect. I went on to say:
Most Australians would agree that a person should not have to suffer ongoing reputational harm once an anti-corruption commission finds insufficient or no evidence to support a prosecution.
Whatever the shortcomings of Australia's current multi-agency framework, it doesn't run "show trials" and it avoids the risk of prejudicing future criminal proceedings while at the same time upholding longstanding legal principles such as the presumption of innocence.
Poor design of a national integrity commission will come at a very, very high cost to Australian citizens. The Australian Greens support it, perhaps; we'll know in a few moments. The Australian Labor Party want to trample on people's civil liberties and human rights, want to sanction the creation of a poorly designed anticorruption commission—remembering that no-one in this place disputes anymore the need for one—but there is a very live and contested argument about how it should be constructed and what it should do. These issues are very important.
Let me just briefly demonstrate to you how dangerously broad I regard the private senator's bill that is before us today, brought to us by Senator Waters. Remember that poor definitions mean that people's liberties can get trampled on. That's the ultimate outcome. If things are not carefully and well designed, then the people who pay the cost are ordinary and, most definitely, innocent citizens. Under this proposal, 'corrupt conduct' can include something as minor as a disciplinary offence or any behaviour that gives rise to reasonable grounds for dismissal. Under the Greens bill, even an 'irregularity' that gives rise to disciplinary action could be considered corrupt conduct. You won't be surprised to hear that the government doesn't agree that something as minor as an irregularity should be deemed corrupt conduct. This would mean any such irregularity would be subject to the most extreme and coercive powers of a body like the proposed National Integrity Commission. It's worth noting that many codes of conduct already operate, already exist, across the Public Service to deal with what are effectively matters of misconduct, not corruption.
Let me provide you with a demonstration of how broad the retrospectivity is in this proposition and, we argue, how at odds it is with fundamental human rights. In this bill, the definitions of 'employee' and 'public official' are also very broad. They may even cover foreign governments if they provide a service to the Commonwealth—for example, for foreign aid purposes. It is a significant overreach that this proposed Integrity Commission could investigate the conduct of foreign governments. That is a demonstration of how poorly designed this bill is—and with poor design, I would argue, comes danger.
In the brief time available to me, I think it is important to be very clear about the government's position. The government's position is that we support an integrity commission. Our Integrity Commission will be the lead body in Australia's successful multi-agency anticorruption framework. This is a very important point: no-one has said that the current framework has failed. No-one has said that the current framework has failed, but they would like to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, in anticipation of this new model that is poorly designed. Not only do we have all of the risk of a new model that is poorly designed; we lose all of the benefit of that multi-agency framework that already has served Australia's national anticorruption efforts well.
The government is committed to ensuring that Australians remain confident about the conduct and representation of their Commonwealth parliamentarians and of the Australian Public Service more generally, and that that Public Service is operating in their best interests. Our proposed new Integrity Commission will have teeth, resources and proper legal processes to underpin the work it does to protect the integrity of Australia's Commonwealth public administration while avoiding the pitfalls, weaknesses and abuses in systems introduced by state jurisdictions and those in the alternative models being proposed. Let's be clear about this. The anticorruption bodies that exist in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia are not perfect. I think ICAC, in the way it has conducted itself, should stand as a beacon to those people who are concerned about how anticorruption bodies can get ahead of themselves, operating as quasi-courts when in fact they are nothing of the sort.
Let me finish with this observation, and it goes to the heart of a matter which is which is very recent, very powerful and very much alive at this moment in my home state of Western Australia—and I note that Senator Cash is also in the chamber. In Western Australia, the Western Australia based corruption commission has—my words—overstepped the mark. It has absolutely overstepped the mark and failed to properly understand and observe that very, very important principle of parliamentary privilege—so much so, I'd argue, that the work of parliamentarians in Western Australia has been severely compromised. Let's not forget that many of the people that lead these ICAC bodies are very notable and very 'experienced'. But that does not mean that independent anticorruption bodies are free from overstepping their mark and undermining such a cherished and important principle as that of parliamentary privilege, which goes to the core of our successful parliamentary democracy.
If I had more time this morning I'd be happy to amplify and illuminate for the Senate that very real, potently dangerous issue that has emerged in Western Australia—this contest between the parliament and the independent crime commission. But time doesn't allow me to do that. I suspect that you, Senator Sterle, might even agree with my sentiment.
Senator Sterle interjecting—
You might agree with the sentiment of my comments—
Senator Sterle interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Please direct your remarks to the chair and ignore the interjections.
Senator DEAN SMITH: Sorry. I took the interjection because Senator Sterle is also a Western Australian senator but a member of the Australian Labor Party. There is a very live contest in Western Australia. I note that Labor Party members of the state upper house, the Legislative Council, have voted in support of the privileges committee's recommendations, against the wishes of the Premier, and quite rightly so. The first task of a parliamentarian is to stand up and protect the parliament and the rights and privileges of that parliament. So I applaud them for doing that. I might also sing the praises, in this particular moment and on this particular issue, of the Legislative Council member for the South Metropolitan province, Kate Doust—who's also President of the upper house and the chair of that privileges committee—for the great work she's done in defending parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of parliamentary privilege.
Senator Sterle: Hear, hear!
Senator DEAN SMITH: Thank you, Senator Sterle, for that affirmation, just in case it wasn't caught on the Hansard.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (11:17): I also rise to speak on this debate on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2). Can I say, in the context of inquiries that are underway in New South Wales with regard to the ICAC, that I'm a little surprised to find a Liberal member from Western Australia deriding the same institution that is actually doing work against corruption in New South Wales. I also want to put on the record how important I think it is that this government acknowledge its failure to lead in the establishment of a national integrity commission for the federal context.
I do acknowledge Senator Smith's genuine hard work in this place and the several major contributions he's made to national debate. I also acknowledge his recognition of the work of Kate Doust in Western Australia and of Senator Sterle's presence here and the issue that's very live at the moment in Western Australia with regard to privilege, in which I have some considerable interest. However, he can't have it both ways, and I think that's what's happening here. For those who are in the chamber and perhaps those who are listening, we have a government telling the Australian people that they're there for the quiet Australians, that they will stand up for integrity. In fact, they claim that they've advanced this front. If I can use Senator Smith's words, he said they have a conceptual support for the concept of a national integrity commission. But when you're the government and you're in the beginning of your third term in government, Australians have a right to expect a bit more than conceptual support for a national integrity bill.
What are we talking about with this word 'integrity'? I commend the Greens political party for at least having the term 'integrity' maintained in this bill. I think there's something very powerful in stating in its title what it is that this bill seeks to achieve: to seek integrity and to preserve integrity. The word 'integrity' actually means all of these things: honesty, uprightness, probity, rectitude, honour, honourableness, good character, ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, nobility, high-mindedness, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness and trustworthiness. I cannot think of one Australian I know who wouldn't support the establishment of a body that is aligned to those particular revelations of the best of the human spirit and human endeavour.
So why is this government not doing anything about it? Why are we at a point where, in their third term of government, having celebrated six years of being the government of Australia, Labor is here today supporting a bill that's been advanced by the Greens in a form with which we are not entirely comfortable? I would say that, if we were in government, this chamber would already have dealt with the establishment of a national integrity commission.
When you hear the contributions from those opposite saying, 'Oh, we haven't got it right; we can't get it right', that is a failure of government that they put on the record every time they get up and speak against the establishment of a national integrity commission. I know that there is definitely widespread support among Australians for the establishment of a national integrity commission. In fact, according to polling by the Australia Institute, as many as 80 per cent of Australians really support the creation of this integrity body at a federal level. I will concede that all parties who are in this debate here will acknowledge that getting an anti-corruption body firmly established and getting the terms is very difficult to get exactly right. It is a delicate design task. But, when you're the government, that is the task that's before you—to undertake the work, with all the resources of government behind you, to develop a model that is effective and can be implemented.
While the piece of legislation that's before us today may not yet be perfect, it is quite close to what Labor said we would do in government. That is the reason—in the absence of leadership and in the absence of the government acting with integrity with regard to this piece of legislation—that Labor will support the Greens' amendment today. Believe me, there are plenty of things about which we disagree. As I said, this bill isn't perfect, but it's a long way ahead of where this tardy government is in the establishment of a national integrity commission. I will say on the record that I align myself with what Australians believe: that we need action now and we need to get on with the task. It doesn't seem that that's of any import to those who sit opposite.
How do we know that this is of so little value to them? We only have to look at their legislative agenda. For those who don't come to parliament every day, you don't always understand how everything works. But let me tell you that, when you're the government, you control the legislation. You decide what gets listed as the work of the parliament every week. The government make those decisions. This government has chosen, week after week, when those opposite have decided to show up—we did have the part-time parliament, remember?—to not make it a priority to list legislation relating to a national integrity commission. Despite their contributions in this place today, where they are trying to act like they are doing the right thing, it is pretty clear from their legislative agenda—from their failure to have developed legislation before us—that this simply isn't a priority for them, which puts them at odds with 80 per cent of the population.
It's been more than seven months now since those opposite put forward their half-baked version of an integrity commission. This weekend, as I said, marked six years of Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. During these six years, the government have been plagued by very serious allegations of scandals and misconduct. Perhaps there lies some rationale for why they're so reluctant to get on with the job of advancing a national integrity commission. But, despite that, they still somehow lack the heart to tackle corruption. It simply isn't a priority. If this were a priority for the government, they would have picked up Labor's plan for a national integrity commission and they would have already brought this legislation before the parliament.
Unlike those opposite, Labor didn't have to be pressured or dragged kicking and screaming to the table on this matter of the national integrity commission. Labor, in fact, first announced our plan for a national integrity commission back in January of 2018. We saw the need, and we advanced a plan to make that one of the first pieces of business if we were successful in the last election. We went to the election with a commitment for a national integrity commission with all the powers of a royal commission. Our plan for a national integrity commission had seven detailed design principles, including that the commission would have a broad jurisdiction to investigate corruption, that it would have the power to initiate its own investigations and that it would have the power to hold public hearings if the commissioner determined it was in the public interest to do so.
I want to go to the contribution from Senator Dean Smith with regard to public versus private. He makes valid points about reputational damage. But these bodies—these national integrity commissions of various shapes and sizes around the country—have informed the way in which a federal body might act with regard to reputational risk and be able to manage that. The fourth of Labor's seven design principles is that the commission should be granted the investigative powers of a royal commission, including search and surveillance powers, powers to compel witnesses and subpoena documents, and powers to carry out its own investigations with warrant oversight by the Federal Court. Then, with that information, we suggest the fifth principle would be that, while the presumption will be that hearings will be held in private, the commission would have discretion to hold hearings in public where it determines it is in the public interest to do so. So the claims that were put there by Senator Smith about how we can't do this and it's too hard are not true.
If we're going to establish an integrity commission and endow it with such significant powers, we have to create a sense of belief and also empowerment for those who are leading that commission to act with integrity themselves; to be mindful of the risk to reputation; to be able to discern with wisdom, dare I say, where there is a risk that a person might inadvertently be caught up in something; and to have that person's hearing undertaken in public, affording them privacy where that is appropriate but allowing the antiseptic power of the public hearing so that the Australian populace will hear about what's going on where that is appropriate. It is not beyond the capacity of an integrity commission to act with that form of careful and wise justice in mind.
We support the legislation today, but we will keep fighting for our own version of a national integrity commission with teeth, which has proper independence, resources and powers. We believe that corruption has no place in Australia, and governments should be doing everything they can to prevent it. Every Australian should feel comfortable that their government is open, transparent and free from corruption and that it is acting with integrity at every level. Eighty per cent of Australians believe an integrity commission is necessary, but that is still not enough for this government to actually do the governing that's required.
When you're a citizen living your life, running a small business in rural New South Wales, for example, or participating in supporting learning in an early childhood centre in the middle of one of our great cities or caring for somebody or working in any of the professions, you don't always understand or observe what your government is doing. But there have been some whole-of-nation attention-gathering scandals and corruption events that have hit the Commonwealth in recent times. I just want to remind you of a couple of them.
People will be familiar with the Australian Wheat Board—there was a kickback scheme and a scandal. There was the security affair about the currency of Australia with the design of new kinds of currency and its involvement with overseas jurisdictions. There was the deeply concerning survey of federal public servants by the Australian Public Service Commission which revealed that five per cent of respondents in our Public Service declared that they saw misconduct in their workplaces. And there were the equally concerning results of another survey which measured community perception of corruption at the federal level. That survey, which was conducted by Griffith University and Transparency International, showed that an incredible 85 per cent of Australian citizens represented in this study, 85 per cent of respondents, believed that at least some federal members of parliament were corrupt, while 18 per cent considered that most or all members were corrupt.
I hate to actually put that on the record in this place, and I do want to put on the record my esteem for colleagues of all stripes across this parliament for the hard work that they do in representing their constituencies, even those who hold views quite different to mine. But if this is the perception that our citizens have of what happens in this place then the task of establishing a national integrity commission is an urgent one that this government is failing to respond to. It will be a threat to the integrity of our democracy if this government allows this perception to continue to fester.
It's not the only thing that the government are failing on. They'll bring in legislation that they think can divide the parliament. Where's the legislation to unite the nation? Where's the leadership that we've been offered and promised? Day after day with their legislative program they fail to respond to the real and pressing challenges of supporting the democracy of this nation. This bill, from the Greens, is another absolute representation of the work that needs to be done by those who are not in government because the government are failing in their duties.
The social contract revolves around expectations that elected representatives will act in the best interests of their voters. There are very serious ramifications and consequences when voters feel like this contract that they have with the parliament and parliamentarians is broken. You'd think that the examples that I have just given that are on the public record and which are well known to those on the government benches in the green chamber and here should have been enough for them to jump-start into action—but, sadly, this has not been the case. Time and time again this lacklustre government has shown it's not serious about integrity or tackling corruption, like last month when it voted down Labor's motion demanding it keep to its promise to establish this National Integrity Commission.
Can I just advise that, on the last Thursday we sat before we went to the sitting break over the spring period, Labor moved in the green chamber that the government get on with this job to establish the National Integrity Commission. The government voted against it. So they say one thing and get amplification in social media and in the traditional media, but the reality is, when it comes to the crunch, these guys are missing in action. They have failed to deliver a legislative program. They have whined and whinged here about how difficult the task is. They have been here for six years—they're in their third term—and still they're putting on the public record, by their responses today, that they're not up to the job. They're not up to the job of legislating for what Australians want.
The question has to be asked: if Scott Morrison and the Liberals are so keen on what's happening in New South Wales, why are they so scared of a national integrity commission at the federal level? I believe in integrity at every level of government: local government, state government and federal government. And, while this government refuses to act, they have carved out an area that lacks the clean impact of scrutiny that would be delivered by a national integrity commission. The Prime Minister has indicated that ensuring integrity in registered organisations like the CFMEU is a priority. Well, yes, integrity is a priority—but what about at the national parliament level? Given the scandals which continue to rock this shambolic government, it's becoming a little clearer to me—and perhaps to you, Acting Deputy President Brockman—why they've decided not to make it a priority. Every time they ignore or cover up scandalous conduct by their own ministers, they actively obstruct progress on this matter.
For a long time after Labor announced our intention to establish a national integrity commission, we were on our own. We were the only voice calling for it. This change in rhetoric—'Oh, we're thinking about it but it's too hard'—is now a small step in the right direction, but it is dragging this government kicking and screaming. Once again, just like they were with the banking royal commission, they are failing to respond to the reality that's before the eyes of every Australian, who can see quite clearly what needs to happen. It's well past time for the Liberal and Nationals members in this government to listen to the 80 per cent of Australians who agree that we need a national integrity commission. It's time for them to get on with the job. I remind this third-term government of the commitment they took to the federal election this year. It's time to deliver on that commitment.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:37): I move:
That the question be put.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.
The Senate divided. [11:41]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (11:44): I understand that no amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I will call Senator Waters to move the third reading.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (11:45): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a third time.
The Senate divided. [11:50]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:54): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019. The bill contains two measures relating to multinational tax as well as a minor tax measure relating to luxury car tax. From the outset, as my colleagues in the other place have pointed out, Labor will support this bill. However, we think the government could go further and adopt measures which could provide much-needed revenue to help boost an economy that is floundering on this government's watch.
Schedule 1 of the bill deals with Australia's thin capitalisation rules. Under the rules, an entity must comply with accounting standards in determining and calculating the value of assets, liabilities and equity capital. Currently an entity can depart from this value to use figures that are not in the entity's financial statements or recognise certain assets not recognised by accounting standards and revalue intangible assets without an active market. The amendments in schedule 1 would mean that entities would have to use figures in the financial statements and could not revalue assets for thin capitalisation purposes. The amendments in this schedule would also mean that non-ADI foreign controlled Australian consolidated groups having foreign investments or operations would be treated as both outward and inward investing entities. This means that certain companies won't be able to benefit from thin capitalisation rules that they shouldn't be benefiting from. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that this measure will raise $240 million over two years from 2020 to 2021. These amendments are all fine, and Labor will support them.
Schedule 2 of this bill requires offshore suppliers of rights or options to use commercial accommodation in Australia to include these suppliers in working out their GST turnover. These amendments recognise the reality that many people—Australians and overseas consumers—are booking accommodation in Australia online and using online service providers that are based overseas. The changes in this schedule mean that the playing field is levelled in relation to GST treatment, regardless of whether someone books accommodation directly or through an offshore provider. The explanatory memorandum to the bill says that this measure will raise $15 million in GST revenue over the forward estimates, and Labor will support this measure.
Schedule 3 of this bill is a minor taxation measure that deals with the removal of liability for the luxury car tax from cars that are reimported following service, repair or refurbishment overseas. Luxury car tax is currently applicable to taxable importations of luxury cars, not only to the initial purchase but to reimportation as well—that is, where the car re-enters Australia after being serviced, repaired or refurbished overseas. This schedule would mean that the same taxation treatment would apply regardless of where the car is serviced, repaired or refurbished. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that this measure would have a negligible cost to revenue over the forward estimates, and Labor has no issue with this measure.
Multinational tax avoidance is a serious issue. It places serious pressure on a revenue base that is increasingly coming under strain from several sources, including from issues associated with the ageing population. Closing down tax loopholes means that more taxpayer money stays in Australia to fund critical services, such as hospitals and schools, and productivity-enhancing investments. It's also fair to say that the state of the economy, which is floundering on this government's watch, requires actions by government that will need to be funded from somewhere. Last week we saw the release of the national accounts for the 2019 June quarter, and it didn't make for great reading. The accounts revealed the lowest level of economic growth in Australia since the GFC—a level of economic growth lower than the Reserve Bank had forecast and than the government had forecast in their budget. The national accounts showed GDP per capita going backwards over the year, productivity going backwards over the year, household spending remaining weak and total private business investment going backwards. And what did we get from the government? We got nothing serious, no economic plan to turn things around. We got a fair bit of finger-pointing, blame-shifting and excuse-making—a Treasurer in his press conference last week even gloating over these figures, simply because they may have been better than some people were forecasting and better than even-worse numbers, which just sounds ridiculous.
We know that the government's heart isn't quite into all this. For example, they like to cite revenues raised by the Tax Avoidance Taskforce but never admit that most of those revenues are based on Labor's transfer pricing laws that they opposed in 2013. It was Labor's laws that the Liberals opposed that underpinned the tax office's $300 million win against Chevron. It was Labor's laws that the Liberals opposed that delivered the tax office's $529 million settlement with BHP. And let's not let the record stand uncorrected when the government continues to peddle the mistruth that Labor voted against the multinational anti-avoidance law. It's a tired old rewriting of history that government all too predictably likes to repeat.
You need only look at what Labor put forward at the last election in relation to multinational tax avoidance to judge what our position is. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out in the other place, we had 19 measures to crack down on loopholes and tax havens. These included tightening debt reductions, closing public reporting loopholes, increasing capacity for the ATO, public reporting of AUSTRAC data, and whistleblower protections. These were serious measures aimed at multinational tax avoidance. The government could take up any of these. If they put them forward, we would support them. A serious agenda to tackle multinational tax avoidance would ensure that we had the revenue to deal with future budget pressures and measures to rescue an economy that's floundering under the watch of this government.
To conclude, Labor will support this bill, as we have done with all sensible measures to deal with multinational tax avoidance. However, we know that the government can do more in this area and we urge them to do so. If they took it seriously, we might be able to generate the revenue required to deal with some of the future budgetary pressures as well as an economy that is struggling on their watch.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:00): I will also keep my contribution today brief. The Greens will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019. I would also like to put a bit of history on record today. Given that we have so many new senators in this chamber, I thought it was worth highlighting that it was the Greens who initiated the first groundbreaking Senate inquiry, in 2014-15, into making multinationals pay their fair share of tax. I'd like to acknowledge my previous Senate colleague and Leader of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne, who was a driving force behind getting up this Senate inquiry. That inquiry delivered some amazing results not just for the two chambers in this parliament but also for the Australian people. We drove that inquiry. We went all around the country and we heard from hundreds of experts. Working with great people from within the department and even businesses and other stakeholders out in the civil society, such as Micah Challenge, we managed to deliver some changes.
It might seem nuanced when Labor get up in this place and say that they had never voted against the MAAL, the multinational anti-avoidance laws. Let me make it very clear that Labor campaigned very hard against that legislation. The Greens voted with the Liberal government to bring in that legislation—and thank God we did! Had we not brought that in by 30 December of that year not only would we have seen a number of big tax-dodging multinationals avoid disclosing new information that was essential in prosecution but it also allowed us to bring in billions of dollars in revenue for the Australian people. That would not have happened had that legislation not been supported.
You will have to ask the Labor Party why they campaigned so hard against that legislation, given that it made perfect sense. I remember former senator Sam Dastyari—who I actually have a lot of time for and worked very hard with on a number of committees—putting up a billboard in Sydney that Christmas saying that the Greens had voted against tax transparency, because of an amendment that happened to be tacked onto that bill that we didn't agree with. So there you go, if ever you wanted an example of how cynical politics can be. This chamber did a fantastic thing. The Greens worked constructively with the government to get very important laws in place that have, to this day, continued to allow the Australian Taxation Office to go after big international tax dodgers.
I want to make one other point before I conclude my contribution today. This bill seems very straightforward, though it's reasonably technical, including for those of us who spend time poring through these documents. But I do want to say something in relation to the section on thin capitalisation. This is something that we had been talking about for some time. It's been tried overseas, and it has been looked at by a number of countries, including the OECD and various groups that have looked at better information sharing and putting in place standard rules between countries. So the principle is a very good one. I also want to highlight the idea that companies would need to use their audited assets and liabilities data, which of course helps us determine their leverages and whether they are unduly claiming excess interest deductions on debt that's not reasonable. That does rely on a level of integrity at the audit level for these large corporations.
The Greens were very happy to support the Labor Party's referral to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recently—an inquiry which is reporting by 1 March 2020, next year, on the regulation of auditing in Australia, with particular reference to the relationship between auditing and consulting services and potential conflicts of interest, other potential conflicts of interest, the level and effectiveness of competition in audit and relating consulting services and so on and so forth. Indeed, there are 12 various terms of reference that will go into some detail, looking very closely at the big four accounting firms, in particular, and the services they provide both to the federal government and to big corporations.
So it's very important that the Senate continues to do its great work that I have been here to witness in the last seven years looking at the financial services industry. I am very pleased we have another piece of legislation before us today that's going to help the government crack down on multinational tax avoidance. But I urge all senators to pay particular attention to and show interest in this joint parliamentary inquiry that's coming up. The big four auditors are being looked at very closely. Overseas, particularly in the UK, there have been a number of startling recommendations in relation to breaking up the power of big audit companies. We have to be very, very confident that the audited assets and liabilities, for example, on the balance sheets of companies that we are going to be using around our tax laws are actually fair and reasonable estimates and that there are no conflicts of interest that could possibly distort those. I conclude my contribution.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (12:06): I too rise to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019. I note in starting that sometimes there comes from certain sections of the commentariat and those opposite the throwaway idea that those on this side of the chamber are somehow not as supportive of integrity in our tax system as those opposite.
I'm going to run through a little of what this government has done over the last six years in the tax integrity space. As a point of philosophy, those on this side are absolutely committed to tax integrity, because everyone who is not paying their fair share of tax is putting an unfair burden on those who are. So your mum and dad and small-business owners who are doing the right thing, who are paying their fair share of tax, are hurt. The vast majority of farmers out there and the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses are doing the right thing and paying their fair share of tax. Those companies that aren't, obviously increase the burden on those who are paying their fair share of tax.
Those on this side of the chamber are vitally aware that ensuring the integrity of our tax system is absolutely fundamental to the operation of government but also just to fairness in our economy. People need confidence that the system is going to treat them fairly, and in that way taxes can be maintained at as low a level as possible to provide the essential services that Australians need. If everyone is paying the correct amount of tax they are required to pay then no-one is, by definition, treated unfairly. If everyone plays by the rules then we do not need to burden our society or anyone in it with an unduly high level of taxation. So tax integrity—and this bill builds on a very strong government record in this space—is vital to ensure the fairness of our economy.
As I've said, this is a government that has had a long and ongoing commitment to tax integrity. This goes back many budgets now. I wish to just run through a few measures. This bill itself makes some fairly important but narrow changes to our tax system. It builds on a series of changes, over a number of years, to improve the integrity of our tax system and make sure we collect that tax which is required to be paid under the law.
This goes back to a number of things that the government has done over the last few years. There was the Banking Executive Accountability Regime to ensure that senior executives were accountable for the decisions they had made. This was a very significant reform in Australia's financial services history. It imposed a higher standard on the behaviour of banks and their senior executives and directors. It strengthened the leadership of financial system regulators by enabling ASIC and APRA each to have second deputy chair positions. That is a fundamental basis for making sure that we create a level of integrity and transparency in the system.
The government has created a one-stop shop for dispute resolution with the establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. This enables free and fast dispute resolution to consumers. There has been an increase in the powers of APRA in relation to crisis management and non-bank lenders to ensure resilience and ongoing stability in the Australian financial system, a cap to the commissions on life insurance products, a raise to professional education and ethical standards for financial advisers, and a ban on excessive credit card charges. So we can see that we're building a strong financial system by putting in place those integrity measures that the system needs.
We've also obviously done a lot in the direct area of multinational anti-avoidance law. Multinationals, due to legislation passed in the previous parliament, are no longer able to use corporate structures with foreign trusts and partnerships to avoid the application of the multinational anti-avoidance law. That was announced in the 2018 budget and has been passed through this place. The government continues its commitment to ensure that multinational entities pay their fair share of tax. The OECD estimated that globally between a hundred billion dollars and $240 billion of corporate tax revenues are lost annually due to base erosion and profit-shifting strategies. The multinational anti-avoidance laws that we saw go through in the last parliament addressed that issue.
We've implemented measures to prevent diverted profits from reducing the taxable income of large multinationals, stopping multinationals from artificially diverting profits to offshore, lower-taxing regimes. These laws have been in place for a significant period of time, since 2016. It prevents multinationals from escaping the Australian tax system by using these artificial arrangements to move their taxable presence out of Australia to lower taxing jurisdictions. This measure has had a discernible impact on the way multinational corporations are behaving. Something like $7 billion in sales revenue has already been added to Australia's tax base as a result of these changes. Thirty-eight multinational entities have changed their compliance arrangements to bring Australian sourced sales back on shore in compliance with those laws. These include the large companies that we've talked about in this place a number of times, such as Google and Facebook. Obviously we do not want to discourage innovative business models, but we do need to make sure that the way businesses are structured returns a dividend of activity within Australia to Australia through the taxation system. This makes sure that everyone is paying their fair share of tax so no other taxpayers are overburdened.
This effort to attempt to improve multinational tax arrangements is continued in this bill. It is a highly technical bill which addresses a number of issues. Schedule 1 deals with thin capitalisation. This is about ensuring integrity in the thin cap rules. Affected taxpayers have a range of options available to justify their debt levels under the thin capitalisation rules. Impacted entities with genuine commercial debt levels can continue to use the safe harbour debt test and revalue assets in their financial statements—provided that this is consistent with the accounting standards—and use an arms-length debt test or use a worldwide gearing test. This measure applies equally to all entities subject to thin capitalisation. Where entities are not able to recognise certain assets for accounting purposes or choose not to reflect the value of their financial statements, they have the option of supporting their debt using the arms-length debt test or the worldwide gearing test. Obviously these are highly technical changes; you do need to be a tax expert to understand much of this. But it is important that we have a robust outcome that adds to the integrity of our tax system and allows taxpayers to justify any deductions they claim; in this case, debt deductions are on a genuine commercial basis. In the tax law, clarity is king. Where confusion exists is where you have the potential for avoidance beyond the law.
Schedule 2 of the bill goes to online hotel bookings. This is about treating like with like within our taxation system. Currently the turnover concession in GST law means that offshore companies are exempt from counting sales of Australian hotel accommodation when calculating their GST turnover. This means these companies often do not need to register for and charge GST on their mark-up over the wholesale price of the accommodation. This very clearly gives those offshore companies an unfair advantage over Australian businesses that are providing an identical service, as Australian sellers within this jurisdiction are required to charge GST on their mark-up. This is levelling the playing field. It is about tax integrity. It ensures the same tax treatment of Australian hotel accommodation whether that accommodation is booked through a domestic or offshore company. Offshore travel companies will be required to charge GST on the mark-up they charge on hotel bookings in the same way as Australian sellers. The revenue impact of this measure is fairly modest—$15 million over the forward estimates period, which will be within the GST so it will go straight to the states and territories. As such, this is not a revenue item; this is about ensuring the integrity of our system and ensuring that Australian businesses are operating on a level playing field with their international counterparts.
Schedule 3 removes the luxury car tax on reimported cars refurbished overseas. The risk of people using this change to avoid the luxury car tax is very low. Overseas refurbishment of cars includes additional shipping costs, insurance costs, customs duties and compliance costs associated with exportation and reimportation, which is likely to outweigh any benefits from avoiding the luxury car tax. This is only going to be used, therefore, by genuine car enthusiasts seeking specialist refurbishment overseas. This has been raised with the government a number of times, in relation to the Australia-US free trade agreement, and it has decided to proceed with this option as a way of dealing with this issue.
This government has a proud track record on stopping multinationals and any company avoiding paying their fair share of tax. To do otherwise is to unfairly burden those in society who are doing the right thing.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (12:18): The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019 is a bill that gives us an opportunity to actually canvass some of the issues that are facing the country—the state of the economy and the extraordinary con job that was done throughout the last election. In the election period we saw arguments put, particularly by the Liberal Party and the conservative press, the right-wing press, in this country, that suggested that if the government were re-elected the economy would remain strong, the jobs would flow, and milk and honey would be on the table for every voter in every marginal seat in the land. Not for the first time the reality has mugged this fantasy, as we notice that the national accounts, which were released last week, demonstrate the weakness in the Australian economy.
The Treasurer sought to celebrate a very different world, a world in which the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Philip Lowe, has tried to draw our attention, on numerous occasions now, to the real and dire situation—that the Reserve Bank simply cannot carry the load that's being asked of it and act almost on its own to try to reflate the economy. We've had a growth rate of something like 1.4 per cent over the last 12 months. We have wages stagnating, 1.8 million Australians looking for work and wanting more work but unable to find it, living standards going backwards and productivity going backwards. We've got Dr Lowe telling us that more needs to be done to avoid a very serious financial and economic situation in this country.
Instead we had the Treasurer last week telling us that we need to adopt Labor's policies in regard to business investment, but of course not until May next year. The Treasurer talked about how important it was for the business community to lift their game in terms of investing in the future of the nation. He said that it had to be done with the government doing very little, other than a rhetorical flourish, suggesting that after May next year there may be some assistance with some accelerated depreciation programs, which he pinched from the Labor Party. But other than that he wasn't going to do anything that might in any way endanger the blessed surplus.
This is a situation where the government is faced with circumstances where the Prime Minister himself has sought to lower expectations. He's told ministers they're not to comment or raise matters; they're not to take forward any new agenda items. They should only deal with matters discussed in the election campaign, which of course gives them very, very little to say—very little indeed—because the government has no substantive agenda to speak of and said very little during the election campaign.
I'm particularly interested in the Treasurer assailing the business community in what was a rather clumsy effort. The last iteration of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill—which is an ironic title for a bill—had significant measures to deal with what the government saw as its R&D policy. That has now been removed from this bill. The Treasurer last week told his audience that business had to invest more in innovation to boost the economy. This is coming from a government which has taken $1.1 billion, in real terms, from science and research and innovation programs over the last five years. That's a reduction of 10 per cent in government outlays, in real terms, for support for innovation. In the last three financial years, on the government's own targets for business expenditure on research and development, we've seen a reduction in private sector investment of $5.3 billion—a cut of 30 per cent.
The Treasurer may well berate business. But, when it's the government that has so little to say about the future directions of the country in regard to its investment policy and so little to say in terms of the future of science and research and innovation, other than to reduce the government's budget in real terms, it is beyond galling to suggest that it's business that has failed. Despite the Prime Minister's urging that nothing should be said, the Treasurer has gone out with this half-baked, half-arsed measure to suggest that the business community is somehow or other going to fix the problems that the government itself has created with its do-nothing policy. In fact, it reflects the chaos that really characterises the way in which this government has operated.
The 2018 bill, which of course is the predecessor of the bill that we're now looking at, set up a Research and Development Tax Incentive Roundtable with industry associations. The roundtable was supposed to fix the problems that had occurred as a result of previous budgets in terms of reductions in spending on research and development. The government made it clear by their attitude that what they had in mind was not to make the incentive programs more effective but the effect of the reductions. They were, remember, reducing the incentive by $2.4 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Office showed that the real effect of the reduction in business activity, as a consequence of the government's policy position, was that it was down to $1.7 billion, and the government can't achieve those savings because to do so would further antagonise the business community. Yet the government, through the Treasurer, now wishes to berate the business community for not spending more on research and development.
I think it's only fitting that we give consideration to why the business community, particularly the tech sector, was so upset with the government's policy fiasco in this area—the ill-considered changes that it had proposed some time ago. There was a $4 million cap on annual refunds for firms with a turnover of $20 million or less. There was a proposal for the reduction of the refundable tax offset to a company's tax rates for the year plus 13.5 per cent. There was an intensity measure, which had really sharp effects on manufacturers in this country. Now, all of these changes, especially the intensity measure, were heavily contested from the time they were announced in the 2018 budget. The firms that invested or wanted to invest in research and development saw immediately what the consequences of this action would be. The most likely effects of the changes would have been that large firms would shift their research and development offshore and that small firms would cease their research and development.
The public debate on these earlier measures highlighted poor compliance and program management issues. The government thought the way to deal with this question was to clamp down on what they saw as the rorting of the system. Of course they overstepped the mark there as well. Firms found themselves being audited and being asked to repay funds which had previously been approved. Some of these audits went back years. No-one in the Labor Party, certainly not in my time or in my direct experience, is prepared to defend people who are illegitimately claiming moneys. We have to defend the integrity of the taxation scheme. There is no excuse for the rorting of the program. But we shouldn't try to find budget savings by cracking down on what were previously regarded as bona fide claims under the research and development scheme. And we shouldn't ignore the fact that the government's own review, the so-called three Fs review, suggested that there needed to be a fundamental reassessment of the way in which the research and development program in this country operated, and that the incentives that were offered to encourage a high level of collaboration between firms and our research agencies and universities needed to be addressed directly. This was the issue the government needed to pay attention to—not the side issue of claims on software development, as if that was the fundamental issue the nation needed to have addressed in terms of research and development. What is actually required is a major cultural change in the way in which this country deals with issues of research and development.
That's why in the last election—and for many years now—the Labor Party committed to a target of lifting spending, in terms of our research and development, to three per cent of GDP. The current rate is around 1.8 per cent. I understand—we'll see some figures from the ABS coming out within a month or so—it's likely that figure will show a further drop in the level of performance for our research and development capacity in this country and this will put us at the bottom end of our competitors internationally when it comes to the issue of developing research and development opportunities in this country.
The issue here then is not just what it costs in terms of the budgetary measures in regard to the incentive program under the research and development programs in this country—and I made this point on previous occasions—but that it is now the single largest policy instrument we have available within the innovation toolbox in this country. So it is appropriate that adequate consideration be given within parliamentary debate to the directions in regard to research and development in this country. This particular policy measure, the taxation concession, is the most important of all the instruments we have available, whether it be funding through the CSIRO, funding through the Australian Research Council, funding through the NHMRC or even funding through our block grants in universities. This is becoming an increasingly important area for us to be considering.
This is a government that gloats over having legislation to cut taxes but won't look at these issues that are of much greater substance in terms of the future direction of the country. It's a government that gloats about its economic performance where wages are stagnating. We have a situation where the Reserve Bank has made it very, very clear just how dire the situation is. It is a situation where the CSIRO and NAB in their Australian national outlook report, the academic and financial institutions and the Productivity Commission—of all organisations—have all made it incredibly clear how important it is for the government to actually invest in the research and development capabilities of this country. Lately the commissioners have sounded the alarm bells about the future of the economy when it comes to our scientific capabilities.
We have a situation where this government has fundamentally failed the future. The question of how we adapt to technology and how we're able to transform the way we live, particularly in an industrialised country such as ours, is really quite basic to the future prosperity of this nation. And, of course, this goes to the heart of why we should be investing in research and development. The decline in our global competitiveness has a direct correlation with the decline in our research and development capabilities and our research and development spending.
In June the IMD ratings of global competitiveness rating were released. These ratings are Swiss based but have global significance. IMD ratings are based on a comprehensive notion of competitiveness and they measure the extent to which a country fosters an environment in which enterprises can achieve sustainable growth, generate jobs and increase the welfare of citizens. Now, in 2010, Australia ranked fifth out of 63 economies. It now ranks 18 on overall economic performance. The IMD ranking was not the only measure that should disturb us. The Harvard University produces an economic complexity index which assesses the capacities of countries to produce unique products and services, based on trade data. Economic complexity is important because it has been shown to be an effective predictor of future economic growth. The Harvard index shows that Australia is losing its relative capacity for producing unique products and services. In 1995 Australia was ranked 50th. In 2017 it had fallen to 93rd. In the Harvard index ranking, the countries with the most complex economies are, in order: Japan, Switzerland, South Korea, Germany and Singapore. Other notable countries are the United States at 12, Italy at 13, the UK at 14, France at 16 and China at 19. Australia is not in the company of any of these countries.
The index places us in a group of countries that includes Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Zambia. These countries record the fastest decline in economic complexity. There's a clear message here, and that's about decline in our manufacturing capacity and, with it, the extraordinary number of jobs we are shedding. Without new investment in manufacturing, particularly advanced manufacturing, we will not be able to diversify our economic base.
This is a very grim outlook. The Australian Outlook 2019 report released by the CSIRO and the NAB highlights a similar pattern in regard to the innovation challenges for Australia. The report declares:
Solving Australia's greatest challenges with the help of science and technology has never been more important—for our quality of life, for the economic health of our nation, and for our contribution and position in a globally competitive world.
The report warns that if we are not thinking strategically about Australia's future we face continuing wage stagnation, rising energy costs, environmental degradation, declining urban amenity, fewer government services and no action on climate change. Thinking strategically means, among other things, reversing the decline in investment in research and development. The outlook report says that Australia is very much at the crossroads. We can choose between continuing the slow decline and having a positive and more innovative future.
The dangers have been apparent since the Abbott government began the dismantling of Australia's innovation system in the 2014 budget. That's why Labor's election goals stated very clearly, when Bill Shorten outlined our position in response to the 2014 budget, the lifting of Australia's spending on R&D to three per cent of GDP by 2030. That's why we would have instituted a root-and-branch review of the entire Australian research system. That's the kind of strategic thinking that economies with a diverse economy and with superior growth prospects know they have to have. It's the kind of thinking that is simply not happening under this government.
In the previous version of this bill the government bungled its biggest opportunity to turn around the level of investment in research and development. Every country with which we are likely to compare ourselves understands why the government should create incentives for business to engage in research and development, and that's why the Treasurer's intervention last week was so inept—so extraordinarily half-baked. If the Australian economy is to thrive, the government should adopt measures that will increase investment in research and development. The government should start to fix its mess by looking again at the collaboration premium that it chose not to include in this version of this bill. It must build a stronger cultural collaboration and make that a priority for the future of this nation.
We need to be able to transform attitudes to innovation in official policymaking, let alone on the shop floor. We have to choose a better path and we must do it with a sense of urgency. The lives, the livelihoods and the real economic opportunities for Australians depend on getting that choice right. This Treasurer is so busy fighting with the Prime Minister that he's missed that very basic point.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:38): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019. If the projections in the explanatory memorandum are correct, this bill will allow Australia to secure an additional $255 million in taxes over the forward estimates—which is positive, but merely a drop in the ocean in the bigger picture. Tax avoidance is a major issue, costing consolidated revenue billions of dollars each year, and that's billions of dollars that can't be spent on doing good across society. This bill is heading in the right direction, but more can and needs to be done. The effectiveness of mechanisms and activities of foreign owned multinationals to reduce their tax payments in Australia is quite staggering. If you were to believe some of their financials you would be convinced that they are in fact non-profit organisations but continue to operate here purely because they enjoy the business. And we know that's not correct.
Drawing on numbers from the tax transparency data that is now provided by the tax office, for the periods from 2013-14 through to 2016-17, I'll elaborate on the magnitude of the problem. Madam Deputy President, let me just talk to you about five companies on this list. ExxonMobil had income over four years of $33 billion. How much tax do you reckon they paid? Zero. Not one cent of tax was paid on $33 billion of revenue. EnergyAustralia—$30 billion in income, zero tax paid. Virgin Australia—$17.9 billion in income, zero tax paid. Vodafone—$15.1 billion in income, zero tax paid. Santos—$14.9 billion in income, zero tax paid. That is a total income of more than $111 billion and not one cent of tax was paid over the four years during which the income was generated.
The name EnergyAustralia sort of conjures up the idea that this is a grassroots Australian company, but it's actually owned by a company in the British Virgin Islands, a well-known tax haven. Last year, EnergyAustralia reported an income of $6.3 billion. But, unfortunately, their costs were such that in the end there was no taxable income. Of course, this could have been just a bad year, and this could be an anomaly; however, it's not. In fact, for the past four years EnergyAustralia has not paid any tax, despite the company having a total income over that period of $30 billion and a reported taxable income of $52 million. Now, I understand that companies have bad years. But when you've got four years in a row where a company is making billions and billions of dollars and not paying a cent of tax, something is wrong.
The government, particularly through the Department of Defence as a customer, have a substantial ability to exert influence on defence companies. The government can establish the contracts, they have direct access in many cases to the financial records of these companies through their projects, and they have the ultimate choice in utilising suppliers that do the right thing. Yet, looking at the top five defence companies in terms of income, while they are maybe not as bad as the top five companies overall, from tax records we can see that their total income was roughly $14.5 billion but they paid only $287 million in tax—not even two per cent of income. To make matters worse, in reviewing AusTender records you can find cases where the Department of Defence is signing contracts directly with companies registered in tax havens. The Department of Defence has a contract with a value of almost $500 million with Intelsat LLC of 90 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke, Hamilton, Bermuda.
On the one hand we're trying to clean up tax avoidance and ensure multinationals are paying their fair share of tax, and on the other we have a government department signing contracts with companies registered in tax havens. This is not a situation where the company has some elaborate corporate structure and is using creative loans and licensing vehicles to avoid or at least minimise their tax. These are companies where the government is simply shipping the money to the tax haven. It makes no sense. You can't be serious about tax avoidance if you're allowing those sorts of things to happen. This is despite Australia having been one of the first countries to implement the OECD's country-by-country reporting established in the Common Reporting Standard, which came into effect in July 2017. That standard was going to 'combat tax evasion by exposing taxpayers with hidden offshore investments'. It appears we're making little tangible progress. Despite the introduction of tax transparency laws, tax evasion remains a significant issue that we are yet to address.
It's entirely appropriate for companies to make a profit. That's a reasonable thing for them to do. But it's also very reasonable for those companies, when they do make a profit, to pay tax when they're conducting business in this country. When foreign companies come here and set up daughter companies, they enjoy the benefits of our social system. They enjoy the education that brings them competent and well-educated workers. They enjoy the fact that, when their workers are sick, they can go to a hospital. They enjoy the infrastructure: the roads that lead up to their workshops, the traffic lights and all of the things that make our society function. They enjoy the fact that our defence forces are making us safe at home and that our intelligence services are keeping a watch on events. All of that costs money. You can't simply come to this country and operate a business and get all those things for free. That's a significant problem that we have. I have looked at the tax transparency data that is provided by the tax office. When you look at all of the people who are paying tax, I can tell you that there are not many multinationals in there. They seem to be very aggressive in their tax practices.
Going back to this bill, the three schedules of this bill cover the tightening of thin capitalisation rules for multinational entities, the requiring of offshore online hotel booking providers to include hotel room bookings in calculating their business turnover for the purposes of GST and the removal of the luxury car tax on reimported cars sent overseas for refurbishment. The thin capitalisation has the greatest impact, however, with an estimated $240 million over the forward estimates, but it's not groundbreaking. It's quite insignificant in the big scheme of things. If we consider the top five companies and assume that their profit is just one per cent, the same as the current cash rate, there would be an additional $330 million in tax collected. At three per cent, it would be approximately a billion dollars. And that's just the top five companies.
So Centre Alliance will support this bill, but we need to be doing a lot more. We need to be dealing with these companies that come to Australia, enjoy all of our benefits and pay no tax. I am happy to inform the Senate that it's a task that I'm going to be taking on in this parliament. I am going to be calling out the names of every company that is operating in this country that is not paying tax at some stage. I'll be questioning ministers in question time as to why we're dealing with some of these companies. I'll be questioning secretaries at estimates to try to understand why they are engaging with companies that pay no tax. I think that's a reasonable question to ask, and I'm going to be very, very receptive of any answers that come from ministers and secretaries when I ask those questions, because it's not fair on Australian taxpayers. I think it was Senator Brockman who made the point that, for every company that's not paying tax but enjoying a benefit, the burden shifts to other players. So this is an important bill and we will support it, but a lot more needs to be done.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (12:48): I rise to speak about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill. I will start by talking a little bit about the environment into which this bill has been introduced. The Morrison government has a plan to get our country back in the black in a budget sense. A large part of getting our budget on track is, of course, to do with the way in which revenue is raised or not raised. People would be aware and senators would be aware that there has been an issue of especially multinational companies evading taxation not just here in Australia but in other jurisdictions.
Of course, this will be the first budget surplus in over a decade, and this is some years after the former Treasurer and now chief comptroller of the Labor Party, Wayne Swan, said that he would deliver four surpluses when he was the Treasurer. We're on track to actually deliver a surplus budget, and one of the foundations of that budget has been higher corporate tax collections. This financial year, we're due to collect almost $100 billion in corporate tax. In part, that has increased because we have been prepared to take sometimes difficult actions to improve the tax collection regime here in Australia but also work with our counterparts in other jurisdictions.
As my colleague Senator Brockman noted, when big companies don't pay tax, smaller companies or working Australians have to fill the breach, and we don't agree that there's any justification for any company that does business in Australia not to pay its fair share. Where companies fail to pay their fair share, it makes it so much harder to deliver those essential services that Australians rely upon.
Our government has a fine record in this area. We introduced and passed legislation in 2016 to ensure that there would be a higher level of multinational corporate tax collection. In time, an additional $13.1 billion of additional tax revenue has been collected as a result of legislation passed by this parliament three years ago. The Labor Party, of course, voted against that bill, and subsequently they went to an election in 2019 proposing new taxes on hardworking Australians in the form of the now infamous retiree tax and, of course, the housing tax. Both of these taxes are still Labor Party policy, and I note that on the weekend Chief Comptroller Swan again was talking about the importance of hanging onto these dreadful policies. So, on one level, they'll oppose our tough measures on multinational companies, but they will propose new taxes on hardworking Australians. This new multinational anti-avoidance law that we passed three years ago has resulted in large technology companies paying more tax. Now we want to improve these laws and increase the repertoire we have to deal with this issue.
Tax evasion is a lot like climate change: it's very hard to solve without some form of global compact or agreement. We can, of course, put in place tough measures at home, and that's what we've been doing over these last few years, and that's what this bill does. But we've also sought to work with our global counterparts through the OECD and the G20 on what's known as the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, regime, because we understand that, although we can do a lot domestically by ensuring that companies that want to do business in our country pay their fair share, there's also a balloon effect where, even if we are very good at doing that, we also need our partner jurisdictions to do what they can because so many of these businesses are, of course, global organisations. BEPS is considered to cost governments across the globe at least $100 billion a year in forgone tax revenue. This is revenue that should be collected by governments and, obviously, used to pay for programs that governments provide. The G20 finance ministers have been working with the OECD to develop this plan for some years. The action plan has been well known, and we have been a key jurisdiction in driving that. Schedule 1 of this bill deals with action 4 of the plan, which is about limiting base erosion involving interest deductions and other financial payments. Schedule 2 deals with action 1 in that plan by looking at the tax challenges of the digital economy.
I might step through these measures in a bit more detail. In relation to thin capitalisation, effectively this bill says there will be tighter asset valuation rules and retains three avenues for genuine commercial debt. There is the safe harbour, the arms-length test and a worldwide gearing ratio test. In relation to hotels, this bill will ensure that offshore outlets that are provided access to Australian hotel rooms and like must charge the goods and services tax. From 1 July this year, organisations like Expedia will be captured by this bill, where they have a GST threshold of more than $75,000. This, of course, is one of the many measures we are taking in respect of the digital economy. I'd like to commend my counterpart, the assistant minister Senator Hume, for all her work in and around financial technology, open banking and the like.
We have a view that it's very important to look carefully at all the issues that arise with a digital economy and basically respond to changes in the marketplace as they occur. Whilst it may have been the case that we could see dust gather on the statute books in past decades, in the fast-changing digital space—and this is one example—we are always prepared to move as quickly as we can. I think it's fair to say that parliaments are often slower than the marketplace but, given the volume of legislation coming to this place, we are building a really strong agenda addressing the challenges of the digital age. A lot of the issues falling out of the Hayne royal commission, which will be dealt by this parliament in due course, certainly relate to digital issues. No-one could accuse us of sitting on our hands on these issues.
Finally, the bill deals with the issue of the luxury car tax. We are trying to meet our trade obligations, which we always seek to do. Unlike the Labor Party, we actually do trade deals. We aren't caught by ideology. We write our own policies, and we are prepared to take on a very robust trade agenda, one that has seen Australia do trade deals with a whole range of bilateral trading partners across North and South Asia in this period of coalition government. Also, of course, we have committed ourselves. We have delivered the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and we're seeking now to deliver the RSEP trade deal. So whether it's a bilateral or a plurilateral trade deal, the coalition government has got the wherewithal to push these through to a conclusion.
In summary, I would say again that this is a good example of the coalition putting in place a strong foundation in our budget. We actually believe that large companies, small companies and workers should all pay their taxes. We have put in place tangible measures over the course of this period of coalition government to ensure that multinational companies are paying their fair share of taxation. It is not fair for this parliament to give a waiver to a large company, be it an Australian company or a multinational company, in respect of their taxation. We expect all businesses that do business in this country to pay their fair share of tax, and we are always looking to tighten the rules to make sure there is no room for tax evasion. This issue of taxation evasion is like climate change: it is a difficult issue to solve on our own. That's why we've always sought to try to work with our international partners through the G20 and the OECD to try to stop base erosion and profit shifting where multinational companies use accounting tricks to avoid paying taxation where they are doing business. This again is another practical measure in line with the BEPS action plan. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:00): Australians have had enough of multinational companies not paying their fair share of tax. We have seen many companies generate billions of dollars of revenue in Australia, yet pay no tax here whatsoever. How can there be companies with tens of millions of dollars with subsidiaries around the world that sell billions of dollars of products or services, yet still manage to have no taxable income? These are large global companies, successful companies, which are allegedly making no profits in Australia. It really is quite the mystery.
According to the ATO's fourth annual tax transparency report, 722 of the largest corporations paid no corporations tax in Australia in 2016-17. This includes 100 firms that reported more than $1 billion in total income. A few—very few, I think—have genuinely made no taxable profits, but there are many whose losses are purely on paper. That means that there are millions of Australian workers—cleaners, taxidrivers, truck drivers, early-childhood educators, supermarket check-out operators—who have paid more tax in absolute terms than corporations with a billion dollars of income. This is fundamentally unjust.
Some of these companies have used loopholes and dodgy tricks to artificially reduce their taxable income. One way is by paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in licence fees to the corporation headquarters, in low-tax jurisdictions. Others pay millions in interest payments to their company headquarters, again in low-tax jurisdictions. While I'm sure there are some legitimate loans or licence fees, many companies undertake these actions as a way of squirrelling what should be taxable income out of Australia. Ordinary Australians are hurt by these actions. By avoiding their taxes, companies are reducing the revenue available to pay for essential services for the Australian people. Not only are the Australian people harmed; companies that do the right thing are harmed as well as they face an environment which is more advantageous for their competitors that are doing the wrong thing.
During the election campaign, Labor announced a tough multinational tax avoidance and tax haven crackdown. We went to the election with 19 measures to crack down on multinational tax loopholes and tax havens. These measures included tightening debt deductions; closing public reporting of country-by-country reports; increasing the capacity of the ATO; public reporting of AUSTRAC data; closing loopholes for certain trusts that make payments to non-residents; and protections for whistleblowers. In contrast the Liberals were silent on cracking down on tax havens and making multinational companies pay their fair share; in fact I didn't hear boo from them in regard to this issue through the whole election. Instead we are faced with the limited changes that are proposed today. I hope these are but the start of what is needed to make multinationals pay their fair share. So far, however, the Liberals have shown that their hearts are not in it when it comes to making sure that multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax.
While changes in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019 will raise just an additional $125 million annually in revenue from 2020-21, we need to raise every dollar we can to make up for the wrecking ball that this government has slammed through its budget. Closing down tax loopholes means more taxpayer money stays in Australia to fund critical services, such as hospitals and schools, and productivity-enhancing investments.
Labor does support this bill. This bill is almost identical to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018, which was inquired into last year by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. This bill lapsed at the dissolution of the House before the federal election. The Senate economics committee recommended that changes were required for the schedules of the bill concerning the research and development, or R&D, tax incentives. These schedules have been removed from the bill before us today. The schedule that amends the definition of a 'significant global entity' in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 has also been removed, for technical reasons. This bill therefore contains just the following government policies: tightening the thin capitalisation rules, ensuring that offshore sellers of hotel accommodation in Australia calculate their GST in the same way local sellers do and removing the luxury car tax on reimported cars that have been refurbished overseas.
So, despite the title of the bill, only the first of the three schedules has anything to do with multinational tax avoidance. The changes regarding thin capitalisation raise the bulk of the revenue in this bill. For those who aren't aware, thin capitalisation is when a company's level of debt is greater than its capital. The thin capitalisation will provide for how much debt an entity can claim tax deductions against. In recent years we've seen a significant increase in multinational companies revaluing their assets. Concerns have been raised about the rigor and the accuracy of some of these asset revaluations. By valuing assets lower, a company can generate a higher ratio of debt to capital in order to claim greater debt reductions.
Currently the thin capitalisation rules allow an entity to recognise certain assets and revalue its assets in a different way, in certain circumstances, for tax purposes only. This provides a loophole that companies can exploit—and have been exploiting. The changes proposed in this bill will prevent companies from revaluing their assets solely for thin capitalisation purposes. The bill will also require that companies use the same figures in their financial statements as for thin capitalisation purposes. Through these changes it is expected that we will limit the ability of some multinationals to artificially inflate their debt levels and avoid taxation. While Labor's 2019 election policy would have placed further limitations on thin capitalisation arrangements, this bill does not implement this.
Coming to the second part of the bill, schedule 2 amends the GST Act to require offshore hotel booking sites to collect GST on Australian hotel bookings. Currently, unlike GST-registered businesses in Australia, offshore suppliers of Australian hotel accommodation are exempt from including sales of hotel accommodation in their GST turnover. This means that they are often not required to register for and charge GST on their mark-up over the wholesale price of the accommodation. This measure will level the playing field between suppliers of hotel accommodation that are operating from offshore and those that are operating in Australia. The measure will have low compliance costs, as it affects only digital transactions and builds on the expansion of GST collection to digital services. It's not likely to have implementation problems, as we saw with the government's application of GST on low-value goods. These amendments apply from 1 July 2019. It is estimated that the measure will result in a gain to GST revenue of $15 million over the forward estimates. This revenue is disbursed to the states and territories and so has no net impact on the overall budget bottom line.
The third schedule of this bill relates to the application of luxury car tax to cars that are sent by their Australian owners overseas to be repaired or refurbished. Currently the luxury car tax does not generally distinguish between the importation and the reimportation of a car. Cars exported from Australia to be refurbished overseas and then reimported are subject to the tax if the value of the car exceeds the relevant luxury car tax threshold, even if the vehicle has not changed hands. The committee, in its inquiry last year, received no submissions on the removal of the luxury car tax on reimported cars following service, repair or refurbishment overseas. The explanatory memorandum for the bill says that this item is expected to have nil or negligible impact on the government's budget bottom line. I wonder whether anyone on the government benches even knows how many luxury cars that are already in Australia are sent overseas to be reconditioned and then returned to their original owners.
Given that we are facing stagnating wages, a housing crisis and a blowout in waiting lists in our hospitals, it's curious that we are debating a measure of apparently such minor importance so early in the government's new term. As I've said previously, we are supporting this bill. Under the Liberals, working Australians have been footing the bill for unfair tax loopholes that benefit multinational corporations, and the Liberals have taken credit for changes that Labor passed when we were in government and that they opposed at the time. Only Labor has been serious about cracking down on multinational tax loopholes and making multinational corporations pay their fair share. While this bill goes some way to addressing multinational tax avoidance, more needs to be done. Every dollar of tax that companies can avoid paying, sending it overseas instead, is a dollar that is not being spent on our hospitals or our schools or being used to build a better Australia.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (13:10): My first reaction when reading the title of the bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill, was: 'Great! Fantastic! Finally the Australian government is doing something about this desperate issue!' For 23 years I have been harping on about the mega-wealthy multinational companies who are more than happy to operate in Australia and build their unbelievable profits here thanks to the purchases made by the Australian people. Yet these mega-sized companies pay very little or even no tax in Australia.
There are around 700 multinational companies operating in Australia, and too many of them pay no tax here at all. These multinational companies rub their hands with glee at the stupidity of our government and its tax regime and at our stupidity, over the years, in providing concession after concession to outsiders, letting them earn their big profits here and then allowing them to ride off into the sunset with their bursting saddlebags, not paying any tax to contribute to bettering the lives of the people who helped deliver those profits.
Australia is a soft touch on the international scene when it comes to taxing foreign conglomerates that operate here. Everyday Australians—mums, dads, the elderly, workers, and teenagers with their headphones and music purchases—contribute to the incomes of these multinationals. Isn't it only fair then that those companies pay tax on their profits here? Wage earners here pay tax. Australian small businesses pay tax. Larger businesses pay tax. But those multinationals mostly don't pay tax here. Our current legislation is based on tax being paid on paper based profits, so the strategy of the multinationals is to maximise their on-paper expenses in Australia and minimise their revenues. On paper they have made no profits, so they pay no tax. On top of that, their profits are taken offshore. Some even bring their own workers into Australia, who then leave when the work is done, taking their earnings with them. So there is very little benefit at all to Australia from many of them operating here.
This has been a problem for a long time and it's having a debilitating effect on Australia. So when I saw this bill on the agenda, with its encouraging title that seemed to show some promise, I was pleased. I was pleased that the government was finally showing some initiative in attacking this multinational tax issue head-on. But that is very much where my excitement came to a crashing end. After examining the contents of this bill and realising exactly what it actually does, I was deflated and my heart sank.
This bill has a catchy title that gives you the warm fuzzies, but it actually does not do much, broadly, about the stated problem. It has a mix of initiatives that are very technical, wordy and confusing and have very little to do with the huge issue that the bill's title suggests the bill is dealing with. The bill is a massive let-down. It could be very well described as a con job. I would say the title is misleading, and I caution the Australian people to avoid being gullible and being sucked in by the notion that the massive issue of multinational taxation is being addressed in any real way here.
Foreign-owned multinational companies that operate here thrive on the strategy of moving their profits from one international jurisdiction to another until they end up landing in a tax haven. Part of the problem is that Australia is a signatory to a large number of double taxation agreements, which are open to abuse and add to the opportunities to avoid paying tax in Australia. The Australian tax office may have all the laws it need, but it cannot expect to audit and litigate every multinational to secure payment of tax which would ordinarily help the Australian government pay down debt, undertake national infrastructure projects and generally make life better for the Australian people.
Unfortunately, with this bill emerging in the parliament, it becomes clear that the government is still not doing anything close to what it needs to do to tackle the massive issue of multinational tax avoidance. Schedule 1 of this bill tightens the rules on thin capitalisation, which concerns the amount of interest paid on debt by a foreign controlled entity. This change will generate a $240 million windfall for the Australian government in 2020-21 and 2022-23. Wow! The changes will make it clearer to the multinationals that they must use their own accepted values of their assets, liabilities and equity capital in tax reporting. It removes the ability of those foreign companies to revalue—probably meaning devalue—assets, specifically to improve their thin capitalisation position from a taxation reduction point of view. This will also ensure that foreign controlled tax entities in Australia are treated as both outward investing and inward investing entities. Like I said, this is a technicality that really fails to overwhelm and also fails to set the national accounts on fire too.
Schedule 2 initiates changes for online booking agents that manage accommodation in Australia while operating from overseas. The online hotel booking providers will be required to register for the goods and services tax and so collect GST and remit it to the government. That change will generate an estimated $15 million in the three financial years from 2019-20 to 2021-22. Schedule 3 of this bill proposes changes to the luxury car tax on reimported vehicles. These initiatives introduced via this bill are really just tidy-up provisions; they might tweak a small number of taxation issues but they fail to acknowledge the big picture. We need real repairs to the taxation regime to address massive multinational taxation avoidance.
Here are some background facts that have been raised regularly by me in my time in politics. Around 75 per cent of the tax revenue that enters the coffers of the Australian government comes from individuals, the ordinary and everyday Australians who work hard each week to pay their living expenses, mortgage, food, petrol and other costs. Three-quarters of the money used by government to provide services to Australians comes from its citizens and residents. The other 25 per cent of government tax revenue comes from company taxation. Now, 98 per cent of that 25 per cent comes from companies that are Australian owned, and two per cent of that 25 per cent comes from multinational companies. Two per cent! That means Australia earns just half a per cent of its total tax revenue from multinationals.
These multinationals, who I mentioned at the outset, are happy to use Australia to boost their global profits. They include firms like Facebook; Google; Amazon—yes, the online store where your kids buy their headphones and jeans; ExxonMobil, which is worth $29.2 billion globally; Shell, which is worth $388.37 billion; American Express; Visa; Mastercard; oil giant Chevron, which is worth $158.9 billion; and the rest of them. They pay negligible tax here, yet the infrastructure they use—our NBN, the phone system, our legal system and also our Defence Force, to name some—is paid for by the Australian taxpayer. The Defence Force is of particular relevance in this matter in relation to the security of the offshore platforms operated by the global oil and gas companies.
The view of one 20-year former senior expert at the Australian tax office on this multinational tax avoidance is that it is modern-day theft on a grand scale. She has described it as white-collar crime. I agree with her. And here is the real kicker: we're talking about the sorts of dollar figures that would change the lives of everyone in Australia. We're talking about colossal amounts of money from gas fields off the coast of Western Australia that could wipe out the Australian debt. Wouldn't that be something? It's a shame that more people—including the former Prime Minister, the current Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, the Minister for Finance and journalists—haven't taken notice of these issues as they are raised.
When it comes to the big names on everyone's lips these days, it is easy to see how negligent the multinationals are towards the people of Australia. The so-called GAFA—Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple—don't give back to the people of Australia in any significant way via our tax system. Here are some figures: Google in 2016-17 earned almost $1.5 billion in Australia, yet paid just over $33 million in tax, equivalent to around 2.2 per cent of its income. Amazon corporate and web services earned a total of $455 million, almost half a billion earned in Australia, and paid $10.4 million in tax, equivalent to around 2.3 per cent of its income. Facebook earned $331 million, and paid $12.6 million in tax, about 3.8 per cent of its income, and Apple earned almost $8.1 billion and paid $81 million in tax, around just one per cent of its income.
When it comes to oil and gas, the figures get worse. In 2016-17, Chevron Australia Holdings earned $2.24 billion in Australia, yet paid nil tax—no tax. As I mentioned earlier, this is a company worth almost $160 billion globally, yet it paid no tax over recent years. ExxonMobil Australia is another example: in 2016-17 it earned almost $8.4 billion in Australia, yet it paid no tax—nil. ExxonMobil is worth $290.2 billion globally, yet it didn't qualify to pay tax on its Australian operations. I'm sure many hardworking Australians would love to be treated as kindly by the Australian government as these multinationals are.
At present, Australia's gross debt is at $546 billion, representing 28.1 per cent of the GDP. Let me put it in simple terms: that is like every man, woman and child having a personal debt to a foreign country of approximately $21,400 each. The interest we pay on the gross debt per year is $18.5 billion, equal to one per cent of GDP per year, or $50 million per day. All of us who have families and need to stick to our weekly budgets understand the folly that would hit us quick smart if we borrowed to pay the interest on our borrowings. Wouldn't it be nice if the many huge multinationals paid a fair rate of tax, so Australia could pay off some debt, reduce our interest bill and start putting money into the infrastructure and services that would help make Australia a better place? It's a shame that this bill with its interesting title doesn't do more of what that title suggested it would do.
The need to rectify our taxation regime when it comes to multinationals is a big deal. It is a matter that should be much, much higher on the Australian government's priorities list. One Nation includes this as one of its major policies. Our view is that foreign-owned multinationals have breached their social licence to operate in Australia by not paying their fair share of tax. As mentioned earlier, by not paying tax on profits earned in Australia, these big companies do not contribute to the costs of the infrastructure they use to make their profits. Everyday Australians are paying for that hard and soft infrastructure that helps those companies to make their profits. Our comprehensive policy says this:
One Nation rejects the argument put up by foreign-owned multinationals that it is unfair to change tax policy after they have made their final investment decision and that such action will risk future investment in Australia.
The truth is that too many companies make investment decisions based on the fact they will never pay corporate income tax. When it comes to gas in particular, which has additional legislative problems, I will quote from our policy again:
As it stands the only way Australians will benefit from the export of our vast gas reserves in Commonwealth territorial waters is to buy shares in these foreign-owned petroleum companies, because these companies do not pay for our gas, they do not pay tax on the profits made from our gas and they do not reserve any of our gas for domestic use—
in many cases.
We have the weakest fiscal regime for natural gas in the world but it is not only the petroleum industry which is of concern.
One Nation provides a solution to fix the problem: get these foreign-owned multinationals to pay a fair share of tax on their Australian profits. Again, this is from our policy:
We believe foreign-owned multinationals should be progressively removed from paying corporate income tax and transitioned into a tax system based on activity transactions.
By way of example, we would put a royalty of 20% on the value of gas taken at the wellhead using meters.
These transactions are easily enough verified and royalty easily calculated. The companies would then have no further tax obligation in Australia.
Let me just inform the Australian people that offshore they don't pay royalties. Royalties are claimed only on onshore resources, so we don't collect royalties on our gas offshore. Our policy continues:
It is difficult to estimate the tax that would be collected by putting 700 multinationals in a transaction based tax system. But these companies pay next to nothing now, our view Australia can only benefit.
We estimated the tax collected from these 700 companies could be in the order of 24 billion dollars a year based on a 9% return on their known capital investment in Australia of 1.4 trillion dollars.
We propose that step by step foreign-owned multinationals would be taken out of the current tax system and transitioned to a new transaction based system appropriate to their industry.
In respect of the—
over $300 billion—
of tax credits accumulated by a clutch of foreign-owned petroleum companies, we would cease the special provisions which apply to them, including uplift factors on expenses of 18 to 30% a year.
I thank the government for putting forward this bill, because it again highlights the massive problem that we have here in dealing with the taxation of foreign companies operating in Australia. While the measures in this bill might well tidy up some relatively tiny taxation issues, its impact would be negligible when it comes to the overall flow of potential taxation dollars that are being lost to the Australian people through the failure of our taxation regime. I encourage the government to take a leaf out of One Nation's book, read our well-constructed policy and feel free to implement some of our initiatives. Let's take real action in clawing back the billions of dollars in taxation that should be paid by multinationals toward the needs of the Australian people.
I'm sick and tired, as I'm sure the Australian people are, of hearing the same old rhetoric from the Labor and Liberal parties about multinationals not paying their fair share of tax. Under your leadership, it's never going to happen. The Australian people want real change. They're sick of being gouged not only through paying income tax on their wages but also through the GST and the other high taxes in this country. It's only from election to election that these promises are made. You'll call in the multinationals. You want investments in this country. For just about everyone who wants to invest here, you tick it off and invite them into our country, but they don't pay taxes here. You think that because they employ a few people or they build the infrastructure it's a great investment, but at the end of the day, when the infrastructure's built and the workers are gone, what do we end up with? Nothing but raping this country of our resources.
If we got rid of the PRRT in northern Australia or just reduced it from 15 per cent to five per cent, the figures show we could actually get $6 billion in income over the next 10 years just from that. But you allowed the multinationals to come in and take our gas. Japan are taking our gas. They're actually getting more on it than we are in excise revenue, at nearly $3 billion. We get nothing here in Australia from that gas, and now they're turning around and we're buying our gas back from them more cheaply than they're buying it from us. It's an absolute disgrace, and the people in this parliament should actually have a look at this, make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia, and stop welcoming them down here. If you're going to give tax benefits to anyone, give them to the Australian companies, and give them the incentive to actually start up their own businesses here in Australia instead of taxing them to the hilt and letting multinationals get away with everything.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:30): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019. It's crucial that some of the largest companies in the world operating here in Australia pay their fair share of tax, just like every other Australian has to. Labor understands the importance of trying to shut down loopholes which allow big multinational companies to send their profits overseas. This bill addresses that, but it could be doing a lot more.
It's crucial that changes to the arrangements for how multinational companies claim tax deductions occur. There needs to be greater compliance work by the ATO to track down and tackle corporate tax avoidance. We must actually crack down on multinational companies using hybrid structures to reduce tax. It's not fair that Australians work hard and pay tax while big multinationals get to play by different rules. Tax evasion is a serious issue that has not been addressed adequately. It's not fair that Australian businesses are paying more tax in Australia than big multinationals. There must be new limits on the amount of debt that companies can claim tax deductions against. Our tax system shouldn't get softer the higher it goes. How much tax you pay shouldn't be decided by how good your lawyers or your accountants are.
Last year, one of the largest companies in the world paid $80 million in Australian tax on local revenue of just over $6 billion. A local retailer, Harvey Norman, paid more tax, $89 million, on a quarter of that revenue. In the last budget, the Liberals handed back more than $1 billion to big multinationals but cut the pension; that's the priority of those opposite. Under the Liberals big multinationals pay less while young Australians pay more for university degrees. We know that big business have those opposite in their back pocket. That's not fair, and it shows just how arrogant and out of touch the Liberals are with the cost of living pressures on Australians.
I want to speak more broadly now about the state of the Australian economy under this government. Currently, the Australian economy is slowing. Economic growth is the slowest it's been in 10 years, since the global financial crisis. Wages are stagnant. There are 1.8 million Australians who are looking for work or more work and can't find employment certainty. Australian household debt is high, and living standards are going backwards. All of these nasty facts are happening under this Morrison government. The balance between economic growth and ensuring low inflationary pressure is a fine art form—an art form that this Morrison Liberal government is failing poorly at. After six years of the Liberals, the economy has slowed substantially, Australians are struggling and the Morrison government has no plan to turn things around. Weak growth like this is an inevitable consequence of a government with a pure political strategy but not a clear economic plan.
Consumer spending continues to decrease, with Australians who are in a position to spend instead making a conscious decision to save. Last week, the Reserve Bank decided to keep interest rates at a record low of one per cent after two cuts in June and another in July. It's also downgraded its economic growth and inflation forecast. The Reserve Bank Governor, Philip Lowe, has said that it is likely that interest rates could fall as low as 0.5 per cent in the coming months and that, if the world moves to negative interest rates, Australia will be forced to consider them.
The global economy is unsettled, with trade tensions between the US and China continuing to drive down stock markets and exchange rates. Furthermore, interest rates being lowered in the US and political instability in Europe are creating particularly fragile circumstances. The Australian dollar has also hit a 10-year low, of US66.77c. Right when Australians need and expect a plan from the Morrison government to get the economy going again, all they get instead is finger-pointing and blame-shifting. Those opposite fail to take responsibility for their own economic mismanagement. They're too arrogant to adhere to the Reserve Bank Governor's warnings. That's how arrogant and out of touch this government really is.
Its economic mismanagement and incompetence have left Australia's economy adrift. Australians are struggling to make ends meet. This government has attacked working people and their living standards. The government could have stopped the penalty rate cut, but they didn't. They could have addressed the wage crisis, but they haven't. Household living standards are declining under the Liberals, with real household median income lower than it was in 2013. When the global economy is shifting and the Australian economy is struggling to keep up, wages are growing at only one-sixth of the pace of profits, with this government presiding over the worst wage growth on record. That's not much of a legacy. Household debt has surged to record levels, increasing by $650 billion under this government to 190 per cent of disposable income.
The economy is floundering, and all this government has to say is, 'There's nothing to see here; it's business as usual.' Business investment is down 20 per cent since the Liberals came to office, and now it's at the lowest level since the 1990s recession. The reality is that Australia was one of the two fastest growing economies in the OECD under Labor and the eighth fastest when government changed hands in 2013. But, under the Liberals, we have dropped to the 20th spot. That's nothing to be proud of. We as a country are going backwards under this government. That's without looking at the debt situation. Gross debt has risen to over half a trillion dollars. To put that into context, that means that debt has more than doubled under the Liberals. And they call themselves the good economic managers! It's a joke, and they need to be called out for it.
Australians are currently feeling that, no matter how hard they work, they just can't get ahead, because their wages aren't keeping up with the skyrocketing energy prices, health costs and food costs—just the basic standards of living. The Morrison government repeatedly assures voters that the economy will remain strong under its government. However, the Morrison government is in denial about the weakness of the economy. You only have to listen to families and to people out in your electorates to know that they're doing it tough. They're doing it very tough. Tasmania has been hit so hard. Our economy is not moving. It's not keeping pace with the wages. Wages are stagnant and housing costs are rising, but people can't get the amount of work that they need and they can't get job security. This is all under the leadership of the Liberals.
The Liberals spend their time playing politics and talking about Labor instead of coming up with a plan to turn the economy around. The government must focus on ensuring lower unemployment and better wages for all Australians. Our economy is stronger when we have more people in work and when those in casual positions or part-time positions can have the hours that they need. The government supported cuts to penalty rates and championed how there were going to be more jobs created in this country. Well, there haven't been any new jobs created; in fact, there are fewer jobs.
This government needs to be held to account. Those on this side of the chamber will always hold this government to account and seek to have the government actually demonstrate to us and to the Australian people that they have an economic plan for the future.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:39): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to say that we support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019. Yet I want to identify a huge lack of integrity in the government. This is about building facades for the government. I'm going to later ask the people we represent an important question. Do you remember the people who we're supposed to represent? What happened to fairness? What happened to honesty? What happened to service? Let's go through this bill's three parts. And while we're going through them, just remember that Senator Hanson said that half a per cent of tax revenue in this country is from multinationals, yet they use the assets that people have paid for.
The first provision in this bill is thin capital, requiring an entity—a foreign company operating in Australia—to declare the value of their assets at the same value as they carry them on their books. This eliminates a practice of devaluing assets to declare a tax loss while still showing the asset at a higher value in their accounts. That could raise around about $120 million. Remember that figure. The second is online hotel reservations. This will require foreign companies operating an online booking service in Australia to treat the value of those bookings as subject to GST and to collect and remit the GST. That covers hotels, motels, hostels, student accommodation and caravan parks. The threshold is $75,000. It relates to where a booking service block-buys hotel rooms and then on-sells them through their website. There is now GST payable by the booking company on those block buys. It does not relate to where the website acts as an agent for the motel. In that case, the GST would be paid by the motel owner when the room is paid for. This raises next to nothing; there's no figure given, in fact. Let's look at the third one: luxury car tax. It sounds promising, doesn't it? When a luxury car is imported, the purchaser pays a luxury car import tax. If the purchaser has to send the car back for service or repair then, when it is reimported, they have to pay the tax again. The legislation did not distinguish between importation and reimportation. Now it does. This will cost money—slight, small. It's reasonable, but it's immeasurable. How is this about multinationals paying fair tax? It isn't.
One Nation has been raising and championing the need to raise multinationals' taxation, yet the government is now repeatedly, after many years, labelling bills as taxing multinationals. This is a pretence. Further, it speaks to the complexity of our tax system, which is the most destructive system in this country, in my opinion. This bill is putting lipstick on a pig. It is needed, but that's all it's doing. The ATO's then deputy commissioner, Jim Killaly, said in the 1990s—I think it was 1996—and in 2010 that 90 per cent of Australia's large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no company tax.
People in Queensland are already waking up to the fact that, under Mr Morrison, the government is building facades. He's a great salesman, but he's building facades and then selling them. This is a pretence. Queenslanders are already saying that the MO of ScoMo is facade building. He has taken, it seems, a leaf out of former Premier Bob Carr's manual—how to do nothing yet appear to be doing something. There is a big disconnect between what we are being told by this government and what the government is doing. The government is saying one thing and doing the opposite. They're saying that this is about fair tax of multinationals—'multinationals pay their fair share of tax'—but this is not hitting the multinationals at all. We know the government is not collecting new revenue.
Is the government acting in good faith? That's the question that the people of Australia need to judge. Another question is: is the tax system fundamentally flawed? My answer is: both. We have got to the stage where we must do something different. So let's tax multinationals fairly. Let's be fair dinkum. They are not paying their fair share of tax, and the Australian Taxation Office lacks the ability to get them to pay a fair share of tax. Whether it's transfer pricing, or double taxation so they don't have to pay company tax here, or doing it outside the rules, the ATO hasn't the wherewithal to be able to chase this. It's time for a new paradigm. Let's tax multinationals properly.
One Nation raised the taxing of multinationals, and we raised the solution—as Senator Hanson has said—yet again. She called it transaction; I call it activity based tax. It doesn't matter. What it means is that we tax multinational companies on measured output that they sell. We raised this issue in the first place about multinationals and all the Labor and Liberal governments did was laugh. Now they pretend. So here is the solution: activity based taxation for multinationals and wholly owned subsidiaries, like Chevron Australia. Taxation on measurable activity—such as the volume of gas, for example, off the North West Shelf—cannot be avoided. The Europeans are now raising this. Each industry is different, so we have to tailor this to each industry.
But let's have a look at something that's not talked about much with foreign multinationals: credit card companies, like Visa, Mastercard and American Express. They have been operating here for decades, more than 30 years, yet have paid almost no tax. The average per month of interest-bearing debt that these credit companies hold is $30 billion. They charge credit card holders 15 to 24 per cent for that debt, and merchant fees of $5 billion per year. They have been here for more than 30 years yet have never made a profit—supposedly. They recognise income, yet seem to conjure up balancing expenses. And governments—Liberal and Labor—have known about this for 30 to 40 years. It is reasonable for a company to minimise tax, yet there is a reasonable expectation for companies to pay a fair share of tax, especially when they come down here and use our resources, our education system, our legal system and our infrastructure that the people are paying for and have paid for. It is only fair that the people get a return.
Why doesn't the government call in the CEOs of these credit card companies and tell them that, unless they pay a fair share of tax, we will remove their right to operate here in Australia? Why not change the rules or the laws? What about multinational pharmaceutical companies? What about gas companies that export gas to Japan and other countries? We are the world's biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas, yet we get hardly any revenue from it. As Senator Hanson quite correctly pointed out, the Japanese government gets about $3 billion in import duty from natural gas going into the country. We don't get anything like a billion. We're under a half a billion dollars. What about the large internet platforms—Amazon, Google, Facebook—that Senator Hanson mentioned? Let's get fair dinkum. Let's start telling the truth in this. The money raised by activity based taxes would cut personal tax, cut out debt, and provide for droughtproofing Australia and investment in infrastructure.
This speaks to the economic mismanagement of our country under Labor and Liberal. Wages are falling way behind the cost of living. Energy prices are ridiculous. We've got the world's biggest export of energy and yet we have the highest energy prices. We had the lowest prices for electricity just two decades ago; now we have the highest. The taxation system, water, infrastructure, water prices—we're in a massive drought, yet farmers cannot afford to pay for electricity to pump water so they don't plant fodder. This is about the productive capacity of this beautiful country. I'll talk in a minute about agricultural hits because that's what's really destroying the productive capacity. We have immigration that's far too high for our capacity at the moment. We need to pause on that. There are housing prices; infrastructure; lack of spending; family law crippling families; crippling workers; banks controlling; sovereignty being sold out to the UN and destroying our productive capacity; and economic mismanagement.
So I'd like to talk a bit about government inflicted disaster in agriculture. Property rights are fundamental to the productive capacity of this country. Under the UN's Kyoto protocol, the government, under Mr Howard as Prime Minister, stole the property rights of farmers and went around the Constitution and didn't pay compensation—all based on fraudulent claims from the UN, and no data. Water prices and water rights have been mismanaged as a result of the UN Rio declaration that Prime Minister Keating's government signed—again, no data. Energy prices are destroying our country now under the UN's Kyoto Protocol—again, no data. There is carbon farming under the UN's Kyoto Protocol and Rio de Janeiro declaration—again, no data. Soil and chemical run-off, even though there's no evidence for it, is the pretext for destroying farmers right across the eastern seaboard of Queensland—again, the product of the UN's Rio declaration. On fishing rights, we have the world's largest continental shelf fishing zone, yet we import three-quarters of the seafood we eat, as a result of the UN's Rio declaration—again, not based on data. Forestry is being shut down in Queensland because of the UN's Rio declaration—again, no data. Trigger mapping is being used by the Labor government in Queensland to abuse farmers and steal their rights. There is a grass-fed levies inquiry. There's a white paper into a red meat memorandum of understanding. These and many other things are destroying the productive capacity of our country, and the government has the hide to come in here and say 'making sure multinationals pay their fair share of tax'. That is a scam. It's just a facade.
Here's my question for the people. That's who we represent. That's who we serve. Why is the government coming up with these pathetic diversions and not governing Australia? Why is the government full of pretence? This is what happens when we have decades of Liberal-Labor government. As Senator Hanson said, One Nation has the policies that will provide the solution. We need a change from the Liberal-Labor duopoly.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (13:51): Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate for the almost universal support for the intentions and mechanisms that are outlined in this legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019 will help ensure Australia has a strong tax system where everyone, including multinationals, pays their fair share of tax. It will reinforce the ATO's armoury, as the coalition has done in the past with its multinational anti-avoidance legislation and diverted profit tax. It will also ensure that programs delivered through the tax system are effective and well targeted.
Schedule 1 to this bill will improve the integrity of Australia's thin capitalisation rules. Australia's thin capitalisation rules stop multinationals from claiming excessive debt deductions by placing unrealistically high levels of debt in their Australian operations. The bill strengthens the integrity of the thin capitalisation rules by improving the reliability of asset valuations used to support debt deductions. Multinationals will be required to align the value of their asset for thin capitalisation purposes with the values used in their financial statements. The bill will also ensure that foreign-controlled consolidated groups are recognised as inward-investing entities. This will confirm that these entities are not able to use the thin capitalisation tests that are appropriate only for outbound investors. The changes in schedule 1 of this bill build on the strong actions that the government has already taken to combat multinational tax avoidance and are expected to raise an additional $120 million per annum from 2020-21.
Schedule 2 to the bill levels the playing field for Australian hotel bookings by ensuring that offshore sellers of hotel accommodation in Australia calculate their GST turnover in the same way as local sellers from 1 July 2019. This measure follows the government's decision to extend the GST to digital products and other services from 1 July 2017 and to low-value imported goods from 1 July 2018.
Schedule 3 provides for the equal tax treatment of car refurbishments regardless of where the car is refurbished. It will ensure that, from 1 January 2019, luxury car tax will not be payable when cars are reimported into Australia following service, repair or refurbishment overseas.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ) (13:54): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (13:54): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:55): Labor is pleased to support the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. In 2013 this parliament amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to allow the chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to authorise a fellow commissioner to hold a private session to receive information from victims and others affected by child sexual abuse. A traditional royal commission hearing setting will not generally serve as the best way to facilitate participation in the royal commission by those people affected by child sexual abuse. For many, telling their story will be deeply personal and traumatic. The use of private sessions made it possible for as many as 8,000 victims of child sexual abuse to tell their stories to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Such a regime is likely to prove equally valuable to victims of elder abuse and to people with disability who have been subjected to abuse.
This bill will enable other royal commissions to hold private sessions where a regulation is made under the Royal Commissions Act authorising it to do so. In effect this would extend the private sessions regime that applied to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to other royal commissions in appropriate circumstances, including the disability and aged-care royal commissions. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:56): The Greens support the main thrust of this legislation, the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019, and are happy that this Senate continues to do the work of facilitating the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and getting it underway. We know, very clearly, that private sessions create a vital opportunity for survivors to tell their stories in appropriate settings. We know from the experience that was undertaken during the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that the opportunity to give evidence in this setting is vital for royal commissions to be able to hear evidence from folks that have been mistreated and subject to systemic failures in the most horrendous ways. In fact, the opportunity to give their evidence to a royal commissioner, have their story heard, have their experience validated, plays an important secondary role in the healing journey that many survivors are on after years and years of being disregarded, of having their stories shut out of the public view, of being described as liars or fabricators. The opportunity to have their lived experience validated by a royal commissioner is often critical to the healing journeys of survivors.
We do have a number of concerns with the subsequent provisions of this legislation and the effect that they might have on that vital survivor experience. Centrally, the provisions relating to the ability for senior commission staff and so-called assistant commissioners to be appointed to the role of leading those private sessions, we believe, could be highly problematic in the eventual effect of the royal commission. That is why we have been working with disabled people and their organisations for the last couple of weeks to draft amendments that might remove that potential negative effect from the legislation.
I have always said, when it comes to the issue of the royal commission, that if parties are willing to come together and work in a bipartisan way to try to get this process right then that is what we must do. I am heartened by some very positive conversations that I've had with folks in the government and in the opposition. I understand that the government will be moving amendments to address the concerns of disabled people and of the Greens during the further course of debate.
Debate interrupted.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:59): Firstly, I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list and seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
SECOND MORRISON MINISTRY
29 May 2019
TITLE |
MINISTER |
OTHER CHAMBER |
Prime Minister |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Minister for the Public Service |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Karen Andrews MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Minister for Indigenous Australians |
The Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
|
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development |
The Hon Michael McCormack MP |
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan |
Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government |
The Hon Mark Coulton MP |
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan |
Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport |
The Hon Scott Buchholz MP |
|
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories |
The Hon Nola Marino MP |
|
Treasurer |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Minister for Housing |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
|
Minister for Finance (vice-President of the Executive Council) (Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters |
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja |
|
Minister for Agriculture |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
|
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
The Hon Alex Hawke MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Assistant Trade and Investment Minister |
The Hon Mark Coulton MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
|
Attorney-General (Leader of the House) |
The Hon Christian Porter MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Industrial Relations |
The Hon Christian Porter MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Health |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Youth and Sport |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon David Coleman MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon Jason Wood MP |
|
Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Education |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Assistant Minister for Vocational Education, Training and Apprenticeships |
The Hon Steve Irons MP |
|
Minister for Industry, Science and Technology |
The Hon Karen Andrews MP |
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan |
Minister for Resources and Northern Australia |
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan |
The Hon Angus Taylor MP |
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction |
The Hon Angus Taylor MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for the Environment |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management |
The Hon Trevor Evans MP |
|
Minister for Defence |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Assistant Defence Minister |
The Hon Alex Hawke MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel (Deputy Leader of the House) |
The Hon Darren Chester MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Defence Industry |
The Hon Melissa Price MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Families and Social Services (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Government Services |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Children and Families |
The Hon Michelle Landry MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services |
The Hon Luke Howarth MP |
|
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
Updated 9 September 2019
Senator CORMANN: I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the updated representation arrangements moving the Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government portfolio to Senator Canavan. I also advise the Senate that Senator Birmingham will be absent from question time today, Monday, 9 September 2019, due to ministerial business overseas. In Senator Birmingham's absence, Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and the assistant trade and investment minister; Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Education; and Senator Canavan will represent the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and the Minister for the Environment.
SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:01): by leave—I advise that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, has appointed Senator Pratt as shadow assistant minister for employment services in addition to her responsibilities as shadow assistant minister for manufacturing. I congratulate her on this appointment and I seek leave to table the revised shadow ministry list and to have it incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
FEDERAL SHADOW MINISTRY 9 September 2019
TITLE |
SHADOW MINISTER |
OTHER CHAMBER |
Leader of the Opposition Shadow Cabinet Secretary |
Hon Anthony Albanese MP Senator Jenny McAllister |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Deputy Leader of the Opposition Shadow Minister for Defence Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel Shadow Minister Assisting for Defence Shadow Minister for Defence Industry Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence |
Hon Richard Marles MP Hon Richard Marles MP Hon Shayne Neumann MP Pat Conroy MP Matt Keogh MP Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong Senator Kimberley Kitching Senator Kimberley Kitching Senator Kimberley Kitching |
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong Senator the Hon Penny Wong Pat Conroy MP Senator Jenny McAllister |
Hon Richard Marles MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Shadow Minister for Home Affairs Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs Shadow Minister Assisting for Immigration and Citizenship |
Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally Andrew Giles MP Andrew Giles MP |
Hon Richard Marles MP Hon Richard Marles MP Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally |
Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations Shadow Minister for the Arts Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives |
Hon Tony Burke MP Hon Tony Burke MP Hon Tony Burke MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
Shadow Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Shadow Minister for Government Services Shadow Assistant Minister for Carers |
Hon Bill Shorten MP Hon Bill Shorten MP Emma McBride MP |
Senator Carol Brown Senator Carol Brown
|
Shadow Minister for Education and Training Shadow Assistant Minister for Education and Training Shadow Assistant Minister for Skills |
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP Graham Perrett MP Ged Kearney MP |
Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally |
Shadow Treasurer Shadow Assistant Treasurer Shadow Minister for Financial Services Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury Shadow Assistant Minister for Charities Shadow Assistant Minister for Financial Services |
Dr Jim Chalmers MP Stephen Jones MP Stephen Jones MP Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
Senator Katy Gallagher Senator Jenny McAllister Senator Jenny McAllister |
Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives Shadow Minister Assisting for Climate Change |
Hon Mark Butler MP Hon Mark Butler MP Pat Conroy MP |
Senator Louise Pratt Senator Louise Pratt |
Shadow Minister for Health Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health |
Hon Chris Bowen MP Emma McBride MP |
Senator Katy Gallagher |
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure Shadow Minister for Northern Australia Shadow Minister for Disaster and Emergency Management Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism Shadow Assistant Minister for Tasmania Shadow Assistant Minister for Northern Australia Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety |
Hon Catherine King MP Andrew Giles MP Senator Murray Watt Senator Murray Watt Senator Carol Brown Senator Carol Brown Hon Warren Snowdon MP Senator Glenn Sterle |
Senator Murray Watt Senator Murray Watt Hon Shayne Neumann MP Andrew Giles MP |
Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources Shadow Minister for Western Australian Resources |
Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP Matt Keogh MP |
Senator Glenn Sterle Senator Glenn Sterle |
Shadow Special Minister of State Shadow Minister for Sport Shadow Minister for Tourism Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader of the Opposition |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell Senator the Hon Don Farrell Senator the Hon Don Farrell Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP Pat Conroy MP Hon Amanda Rishworth MP
|
Shadow Attorney-General Shadow Minister for Constitutional Reform Shadow Assistant Minister for the Republic |
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
Senator Murray Watt Senator Patrick Dodson |
Shadow Minister for Communications Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security |
Michelle Rowland MP Tim Watts MP Tim Watts MP |
Senator Kimberley Kitching |
Shadow Minister for Finance Shadow Minister for the Public Service Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate |
Senator Katy Gallagher Senator Katy Gallagher Senator Katy Gallagher Senator Kimberley Kitching Senator Kimberley Kitching |
Dr Jim Chalmers MP Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation Shadow Assistant Minister for Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians |
Hon Linda Burney MP Hon Linda Burney MP Senator Patrick Dodson Senator Patrick Dodson Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator Patrick Dodson Senator Patrick Dodson |
Shadow Minister for Ageing and Seniors Shadow Minister for Women Shadow Assistant Minister for Aged Care |
Hon Julie Collins MP Hon Julie Collins MP Ged Kearney MP |
Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally Senator Jenny McAllister |
Shadow Minister for Employment and Industry Shadow Minister for Science Shadow Minister for Small and Family Business Shadow Minister for Innovation, Technology and the Future of Work Shadow Minister Assisting for Small and Family Business Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing Shadow Assistant Minister for Employment Services |
Hon Brendan O'Connor MP Hon Brendan O'Connor MP Hon Brendan O'Connor MP Clare O'Neil MP Matt Keogh MP Senator Louise Pratt Senator Louise Pratt |
Senator Louise Pratt Senator Louise Pratt Senator the Hon Don Farrell Senator Louise Pratt Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories |
Hon Jason Clare MP Hon Jason Clare MP Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator Murray Watt Senator Murray Watt |
Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education Shadow Minister for Youth |
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally |
Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water Shadow Assistant Minister for the Environment |
Terri Butler MP Josh Wilson MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
Shadow Minister for Trade |
Madeleine King MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:59): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The coalition has now been in office for more than six years. Can the minister confirm that, under Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg, Australia is experiencing the slowest rate of annual economic growth since the global financial crisis?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): What I can confirm for Senator Wong is that the Australian economy continues to grow. We are in our 28th year of continuous growth. Where other major trading economies around the world, like Germany and the United Kingdom, went backwards in the June quarter, we continued to grow. Do you know what else I can confirm for Senator Wong? It is that if there had been a change of government in May, right now the economy would be weaker on the back of $387 billion in higher taxes from the Labor Party.
Senator Wong: Point of order: direct relevance—you've been in for six years. Can you confirm the slowest economic growth since the GFC.
The PRESIDENT: You've reminded the minister of the question. He was being directly relevant, even if the last few words may have been a slight stray.
Senator CORMANN: I confirm again that the Australian economy is in a stronger position as a result of our plan to build a stronger, more resilient, more successful economy than what would have been the case under the alternative. I know that in the Labor Party they're having this massive debate on whether they can blame it all on Mr Shorten or whether they actually have to reflect on what socialist policies they took to the last election.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: I know he doesn't want to take responsibility—
Senator Watt: He is the finance minister!
Senator Wong: but he is the finance minister. The question goes to the slow economic growth over which he has presided. Who was Leader of the Opposition last term is not relevant to the question asked.
The PRESIDENT: I was having trouble, between all the screaming, hearing Senator Cormann in that part of the answer. It is in order and directly relevant to discuss the matter of economic growth as part of that question.
Senator CORMANN: This question goes directly to the alternative economic policy choices and their impact on economic growth.
The PRESIDENT: I'll take Senator Wong on this point of order.
Senator Wong: I seek your ruling on how it is possible that the question—and, I repeat, can the minister confirm that, under Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg, Australia is experiencing the slowest rate of annual economic growth since the GFC—have as directly relevant the alternative policies of the opposition. How is that possibly relevant?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I'll just wait so I can talk. On the point of order, the minister is entitled to talk about economic growth. In my view, that is directly relevant to the question. However, any material that is additional to a specific answer must also be directly relevant to the question. So, to that extent, Minister, there is a limitation; the question was quite specific. But any answer—
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong—please. Any answer that covers the material about economic growth is, in my view, directly relevant.
Senator CORMANN: Thank you very much, Mr President. I cannot possibly answer a question about the economic growth in Australia without actually comparing the two alternative policy agendas that were put forward to the Australian people. Under our agenda of lower taxes—pro growth, pro opportunity, pro aspiration—the economy continues to grow. Under the alternative, the economy would have been weaker and Australians would have been poorer. And in Australia, compared with other countries around the world, we actually do continue to grow. As the Reserve Bank governor also said, growth is expected to strengthen into the future. Have you looked at our employment growth? It is more than twice the growth rate across the OECD economies. There is more than twice the growth rate in employment, compared with the OECD average. But the Labor Party doesn't want to talk about the impact of their policies compared with ours, because they are deeply embarrassed about the fact that the Australian people have rejected their socialist agenda. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:05): In Mr Morrison's last budget as Treasurer, the government forecast that the economy would grow by three per cent in 2018-19. Can the minister confirm that the Morrison government has fallen well short of its own economic growth targets?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): I refer Senator Wong to the most recent budget, where the growth forecast for 2018-19 was 2¼ per cent, and that is in on-average, through-the year terms. The actual growth rate, in real terms, is 1.9, which is slightly below what was anticipated, because some of the downside risks—which we pointed to in the budget—have eventuated. But let me also tell you that nominal growth is actually higher than we anticipated at budget time. We forecast nominal growth of five per cent at budget time for 2018-19, and we have recorded 5.3 per cent nominal growth. So, nominal growth is slightly higher; real growth has come in slightly lower. We're not making any secret about the fact that the Australian economy is facing global economic headwinds. We're not making any secret about the fact that we're dealing with downside risks in the domestic economy, from floods and drought and so on. But we are dealing with it, and our policy agenda makes Australia stronger compared with the alternative. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:07): Under the strong and stable leadership of three prime ministers, three deputy prime ministers and three treasurers, and following 16 failed energy policies, Australians are experiencing stagnant wages—oh, and one finance minister; he is the constant in this poor economic record—as well as record household debt, surging energy prices, increasing rental and mortgage stress and declining living standards. Isn't it clear, after six years of coalition government with no plan for the economy, Australians are working harder and going backwards?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): We took our plan to build a stronger economy to the last election, and the Australian people endorsed it. And let me also just correct the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate again. She's wrong when she talks about stagnant wages. Wages are actually growing above inflation. The most recent wages data shows 2.3 per cent wages growth, compared with 1.6 per cent CPI. That is not stagnant wages; that is wages growing above inflation. Yes, we would like wages to grow more strongly, and that will happen, on the back of our agenda to continue to build a stronger, more successful economy. If we want businesses to be able to pay higher wages, we need to ensure that they've got better opportunities to be successful. That is precisely what our government is doing, as the unemployment rate continues to come down. It was headed for 6¼ per cent and beyond when we came into government. The then shadow Treasurer was actually saying that the test would be whether we could keep it below 6¼ per cent; it's down to 5.2 per cent. We will continue to work to get it lower, but the Australian people know that your agenda would have left them— (Time expired)
Australian Bushfires
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:09): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Will the minister update the Senate on how the government is supporting those Australians affected by bushfires across Queensland, including in my home district of the Southern Downs, and northern New South Wales?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): I thank Senator McGrath for that question. Southern Queensland and north-east New South Wales have experienced unprecedented fires since Friday. It is only September, and every indication is that a hot, dry summer is ahead.
There are over 100 fires burning in Queensland and New South Wales, with 51 active fires in New South Wales. However, those fires that were of great concern over Friday and Saturday—the fires at Tenterfield in New South Wales and at Stanthorpe, Applethorpe and Sarabah in Queensland—no longer threaten lives and property. However, the forecast of dry and windy conditions until Tuesday and no sign of rain means the fire situation remains volatile. The fire danger ratings are very high for north-east New South Wales and South-East Queensland. Fortunately, no lives were lost, although a New South Wales Rural Fire Service volunteer firefighter was, sadly, seriously injured while fighting a fire near Tenterfield. Our thoughts are with the volunteer and their family.
In terms of property, five houses were destroyed, another five were damaged and 25 non-residential structures have been destroyed in the New South Wales fires. In Queensland 52 houses were damaged, including 15 houses that were completely destroyed. Fire has also destroyed the historic Binna Burra Lodge in the Gold Coast hinterland, which is part of the Australian World Heritage listed eastern rainforest reserves.
I can report that the Australian Defence Force is providing support from Kokoda Barracks to firefighters in Canungra. In New South Wales and Queensland, we are also providing disaster recovery assistance. In New South Wales, the assistance is being provided under the jointly-funded Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. It is available for the local government areas of Armidale, Clarence Valley, Glen Innes, Inverell, Tenterfield, Uralla and Walcha.
Anyone in need of assistance should contact the New South Wales government Disaster Welfare Assistance Line on 1800018444. Likewise, in Queensland DRFA assistance is available in the local government areas of Scenic Rim and Southern Downs. The Queensland government Community Recovery Hotline is 1800173349.
I want to thank on behalf of the government—and, I'm sure, the entire Senate—our emergency services and our career and volunteer personnel for all the work that they have done in recent days. You have our gratitude, respect and deep thanks. The best thing anyone can do in these areas and others affected by fires in coming months is to plan to stay aware of your surroundings and follow the advice from local emergency management authorities. Buildings can be rebuilt and vegetation can regrow, but people can't be replaced. It's beholden on all of us to take the necessary precautions and care over the months ahead.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:12): by leave—The opposition joins with the government in expressing our deep concern for residents affected by the serious bushfires that are burning across Queensland and northern New South Wales. As of last night, there were 51 active fires in New South Wales and 61 in Queensland. It is of concern that so many bushfires of this severity are occurring so early in the year, and this should prompt further thought by all in this place. Many properties have been destroyed and damaged, including the heritage listed Binna Burra Lodge in the Gold Coast hinterland. The opposition have been in contact with Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and state and federal emergency services ministers to offer support, and we'll continue to monitor the situation very closely.
We commend the efforts of fire and emergency service personnel and the many volunteers who have assisted in these dangerous conditions. We also commend residents of bushfire affected regions for their cooperation with authorities. We join our state and federal counterparts in encouraging all residents to follow the directions of authorities from here on. We express our sincerest sympathies to those who've lost their properties and we'll do what we can to support recovery efforts. We urge state and federal governments to take a compassionate approach towards those affected as recovery gets underway.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:13): by leave—I'd like to join with the government and the opposition in thanking the incredible effort of emergency services workers who are putting their lives on the line, right now, in defending property and ensuring that Australian lives are not put at risk. We also extend our deepest sympathies and our thoughts to the many Australians who have lost their homes, their property and their animals and have experienced great trauma as a result of these—in the words of the leader of the Senate—'unprecedented fires'.
But the Australian Greens don't just offer our thanks; we acknowledge that these fires will only continue to get more frequent, more severe and more intense and put more lives at risk. Emergency services workers have said, unequivocally, that it is absolutely critical we deal with human induced climate change. If we are not going to do that, we will be putting their lives and the lives of many more Australians at risk. It is absolutely critical that we acknowledge we are in a climate emergency, that ministers who fail to act on climate change are putting the lives of Australians at risk and that we must do everything we can to transition our economy away from polluting fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, to renewable energy, to decrease pollution and to ensure that our climate crisis, which is contributing to these fires, is dealt with in a way that is consistent with the science, with the evidence, with what emergency services workers are demanding of us, with what doctors are demanding of us and with what the science is demanding of all of us.
Economy
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:15): My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The 2019 HILDA Survey revealed that, since the coalition was elected in 2013, median household incomes in Australia have gone backwards, declining from $80,208 in 2013 to $80,095 in 2017. Can the minister explain why?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:16): What I can explain is that the Australian economy has faced a number of global economic headwinds, and everybody other than the Labor Party understands that. We are an open trading economy. If you look at what's happening in economies around the world, our economy continues to grow and continues to generate more jobs. There have been 1.4 million new jobs under our government, with, in particular, the highest workforce participation on record, equal highest workforce participation among women, 100,000 new jobs for young people in a very short time, welfare dependency as a share of the working-age population at its lowest in 30 years and a AAA credit rating which has been reaffirmed by the three leading rating agencies. We are one of only 10 countries with that rating.
All of these arguments that the Labor Party are now throwing at us are all ones the Labor Party were putting to us in the lead-up to the last election, and the Australian people judged that there was a better opportunity for them to get ahead under our policies than under the alternative. So the Labor Party can try to run this argument as long as they want, but the truth is, yes, we are facing challenges and, yes, our government have a plan to ensure we are resilient and in the best possible position to deal with those challenges. Where other economies are going backwards, our economy continues to grow and create better opportunities for families to get ahead. You've always got to look at what the alternative scenario would've been—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, on a point of order?
Senator Gallagher: I did wait for some time, Mr President, but it's on relevance. The question was around the HILDA Survey, and we drew on some statistics from that. The minister has not gone close to even attempting to answer that question. We can understand why. But certainly, on relevance, he should be drawn to answer the question—
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, I remind ministers that answers must be directly relevant. However, I cannot instruct them how to answer a question. I do believe the minister talking about economic issues and the government's record in relation to this question would be directly relevant. I call the minister to continue.
Senator CORMANN: Household income is higher under our government than it would've been under the alternative.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: You can laugh about that, but, for starters, you went to the last election with $387 billion in higher taxes. Over the last three months, since the second week of July, the tax office has put $15.1 billion back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Do you know why? It's because of our plan to provide income tax relief for hardworking Australians, which the Labor Party fought every step of the way, right until the end. There's $15.1 billion in tax cuts currently stimulating the economy that wouldn't have been there— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:18): Can the minister confirm that household incomes per capita haven't grown in the six years since the Liberals came to office—yes or no?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:19): I will say it again: incomes are higher than they would have been if there hadn't been a change of government back in 2013. That is because employment growth was lower under Labor, the economy was weakening under Labor and the budget position was rapidly deteriorating under Labor. Of course, we have put our country in a stronger position and on a more resilient trajectory for the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: He may be getting to household income per capita. I will sit down. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann.
Senator CORMANN: It's in very small font, because it's very important, detailed information. The latest ABS data shows that income equality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, decreased from 0.333 in 2013-14 to 0.328 in 2017-18. These findings are consistent with the latest data from the 2019 HILDA, which shows that, while the Gini coefficient—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Having a Liberal finance minister talk about the Gini coefficient is very interesting, but the question was about household incomes per capita not having grown in six years—since this minister became finance minister.
The PRESIDENT: I remind ministers that, while I cannot instruct them on how to answer questions, when very specific questions are asked, one must tightly remain directly relevant to them. On this basis, I think the minister is being directly relevant, dealing with the economic statistics and record of the government.
Senator CORMANN: There are 1.4 million more Australians in jobs, wages continue to grow above inflation, there's $15.1 billion worth of tax cuts and there's increasing effective wages growth as a result of our government. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:20): Australians are working harder but going backwards, experiencing stagnant wages, record household debt, surging energy prices, increasing rental and mortgage stress, and declining living standards. When will the Morrison government finally take action to turn the floundering economy around?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:21): Well, let me just say again: the economy is much stronger than it would have been if the Labor Party had been in government over the last six years. Under our government, the economy has continued to grow, there are 1.4 million more Australians in jobs, we have a record participation rate and an equal record participation rate for women, and wages continue to grow above inflation.
What the Australian people understand but what the Labor Party clearly doesn't understand is that our economic policy agenda offers an even better opportunity for stronger growth into the future. They made a judgement. Labor's favoured higher-taxing agenda, anti-business, politics of envy and class warfare agenda would have made the country and economy weaker and would have made all Australians poorer. That is why the Australian people voted for us. It's time that the Labor Party reassessed its socialist agenda, as even Mr Butler is suggesting. Even Mr Butler is suggesting that they need to have a look at—(Time expired)
Bushfires
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:22): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister please update the Senate on the current situation of the bushfires across northern New South Wales and Queensland?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:22): Thank you, Senator Davey. I'm sure all of our thoughts are with those communities who have been impacted by the bushfires in New South Wales and Queensland, communities who are also struggling with the drought. I'd like to commend the efforts of our first responders, many of whom are volunteers, who are working day and night to keep these communities safe. The bushfires burning in southern Queensland and north-eastern New South Wales remain active and include an emerging situation at Shark Creek, near Yamba. The forecast of dry and windy conditions until Tuesday, with no sign of rain, means the fire situation will remain volatile. I urge everyone to stay aware of their surroundings and follow advice from local management authorities.
The full impact of the fires is still being assessed. The impacts that have been confirmed so far include: in Queensland, 17 homes have been lost in Stanthorpe and fire has destroyed historic Binna Burra Lodge in the Gold Coast hinterland, which is part of Australia's World Heritage Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves; and, in New South Wales, one home has been destroyed, another five damaged and 15 other structures have been destroyed. Sadly, a New South Wales Rural Fire Service volunteer firefighter was seriously injured while fighting a fire near Tenterfield on Friday afternoon. Our thoughts and prayers are with the injured firefighter and his loved ones.
The Australian government is in regular contact with the affected jurisdictions and is positioned to provide assistance when required. On Friday 6 September, the Director-General of Emergency Management Australia approved the activation of a COMDISPLAN in relation to bushfires burning in South-East Queensland and northern New South Wales, which sees our Defence Force on the ground ready to assist in the recovery phase of the fires.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:24): I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister please update the Senate on what actions the federal government, in conjunction with both the New South Wales and Queensland governments, is taking to ensure the safety and support of our bushfire affected communities?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:24): Disaster recovery assistance is being provided under the jointly funded Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. The DRFA is available in the local government areas of Armidale, Clarence Valley, Glen Innes, Inverell, Tenterfield, Uralla and Walcha in New South Wales, and the Scenic Rim and Southern Downs in Queensland. It is important to note that the bushfire situation in both Queensland and New South Wales is considered active, and further assistance may be made available once the fires are controlled. The range of assistance available in New South Wales includes: personal hardship and distress assistance for individuals and families; support for affected local councils and state agencies to help with operational responses and restoring damaged essential public assets; concessional interest rate loans for small businesses, primary producers and not-for-profit organisations; freight subsidies for primary producers; and grants for eligible non-profit organisations. The assistance is administered by the New South Wales government, and anyone needing assistance should contact the New South Wales government Disaster Welfare Assistance Line on 1800018444.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:25): What further measures or assistance is the federal government undertaking to assist New South Wales and Queensland communities affected by this unprecedented and devastating bushfire event?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:26): The Australian government annually invests $50 million in aerial firefighting. Fire-bombing aircraft have been in action against these fires. Our national aerial firefighting arrangements are ensuring the best possible aerial firefighting equipment is available to protect Australians. In addition, the Australian Defence Force is assisting, under last Friday's activation of the COMDISPLAN, which provides non-cash disaster assistance, with the provision of accommodation, transport and sustenance for about 56 firefighters from New South Wales and the ACT.
I also encourage all Australians to ensure they have in place their bushfire survival plan. This has been the driest year since 1970. This is especially the case over the southern half of the country, which has experienced the driest January to July on record. The east coasts of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, as well as parts of southern Western Australia and South Australia, face above-normal fire potential. The BOM has advised this spring and summer is going to be unprecedentedly dry, as seen by this extremely early start to the bushfire season. We need to ensure— (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:27): My question is to Senator McKenzie, the Minister for Agriculture, representing the minister for natural disaster and emergency management. This morning on Radio National the minister for natural disaster and emergency management, Minister Littleproud, was asked whether human-induced climate change was contributing to the unprecedented fires tearing apart Southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, and he said that it was, 'irrelevant'. Minister, do you agree with the 23 emergency services chiefs from all states and territories—who have over 600 years of collective experience and who put their lives on the line—who have pleaded with your government to deal with the escalating human-induced climate crisis? Or do you agree with Minister Littleproud, who has dismissed their concerns as 'irrelevant'?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:28): What I won't be doing, Senator Di Natale, is politicising bushfires which right now are affecting landholders, homes, environmental assets and farmers in communities in Queensland and north-east New South Wales. I will not do that while our state governments and we as a federal entity are dealing with the fallout that is occurring right now.
There's annual weather variability, and I've been very up-front in this chamber, as has Minister Littleproud, about the fact that the climate is changing. There is variability around the climate. That is why our government has been taking strong action on climate change, with our climate emergency fund, with our Climate Solutions Package, where farmers and small business people will be able to apply to us, with projects that will reduce emissions in the real term. Those are actual, practical, effective policy responses to climate change. You don't like to think that we may have a solution on the table that will assist in reducing emissions in this country—from farmers in these affected regions, from our food manufacturers and small businesses—but the fact is: we do have that on the table. They will be able to apply for technological responses that will assist their businesses to reduce their emissions and therefore assist us, as a nation, to meet our Paris targets—26 to 28 per cent on 2005. Again, you may not like to hear it, but we are, as a nation, going to solve that problem. We're going to meet those targets, where many, many nations across the world are not even coming close and haven't even signed up to the Paris Agreement. So, rather than ripping us down, let's work together to reduce emissions and meet our Paris Agreement targets.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question?
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:30): Minister, when will you acknowledge that your government's stubborn inaction on reducing pollution and shameless spruiking of more coal, oil and gas projects mean that you are putting at risk the lives of emergency services workers, people who live in bushfire-prone communities, the loss of property and the terminal extinction of Australian species? When will you acknowledge that your inaction on climate change is responsible for putting the lives of Australians at risk?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:30): That was all very dramatic, Senator Di Natale. I fundamentally reject the premise of your question. I've outlined just one of the measures that our government has on the table to address climate change and the reduction of emissions across our economy. You mightn't like it—it might not be your solution—but the reality is: it will reduce emissions and it will assist, with practical measures, our farmers and our small businesses to use technology to reduce emissions. But I'm very happy to go through other measures. We've funded improved seasonal forecasting tools to inform decision-making on farm so that our primary producers can make changes to how they produce our food in a way that is much more emissions sensitive; tax incentives, including depreciation arrangements, to encourage on-farm investment in preparedness for these sorts of issues; establishing and topping up the now $1 billion National Water Infrastructure Development Fund; investing over $1 billion in Landcare— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question?
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:31): Minister, you've talked a lot about climate variability. I want to ask you a simple question. Do you accept that human-induced climate change is making bushfires worse and therefore puts at risk the lives of ordinary Australians?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:32): Our government has made very clear that we take climate change seriously. We've got a suite of policy options on the table to practically assist our economy, our individuals and our businesses to adapt their practices and their way of life to ensure that we—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Di Natale, on a point of order?
Senator Di Natale: Mr President, I deliberately made that a very, very narrow question. I asked the minister whether she accepted that human-induced climate change would make bushfires worse and therefore put more Australians at risk. It was a very straightforward question, and she's refused to answer the substance of that question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, you've reminded the minister of the question. It is not for me in the chair to direct a minister how to answer a question. That is for everyone else to judge, as long as the minister is being directly relevant to it—and, with the minister's answer, I do consider her to be directly relevant.
Senator McKENZIE: Senator Di Natale, I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to ensure that the stereotypical perspective of the National Party continues. The reality is: we're part of a government that is actually addressing climate change and that put practical measures on the table, across our budget last year, to actually address this.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Di Natale, on a point of order?
Senator Di Natale: I know the minister is steadfastly refusing to answer the question because she doesn't want to put on the table her position on whether she believes that humans are responsible for climate change. It's a very straightforward question, Minister.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, what is your point of order?
Senator Di Natale: It is a point of order on relevance. Answer the question, Minister.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, that was not a point of order. It's not an opportunity to follow up a question. I gave you the opportunity to remind the minister of the question you asked, but I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question.
Senator McKENZIE: Again, we have strong measures to address climate change. The reality is: we've got to make sure, with the impacts of climate change such as— (Time expired)
Infrastructure
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:34): My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Reserve Bank governor, Dr Lowe, has called for an increase in infrastructure investment seven times in the four months since the election. Why has the government ignored the repeated warnings of the independent Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:34): Let me just make the first point, and that is that, under our government, we are increasing infrastructure investment. The information that is in front of the Governor of the Reserve Bank is the information that was in front of us as we were putting our budget together, and we have put forward $100 billion in infrastructure investment, which is a significant boost from the $75 billion pipeline the year before. I would also refer you to comments that the Governor of the Reserve Bank has made repeatedly now, over the last two months—because you're selectively quoting him. He has made it very clear that his expectation is that economic growth will strengthen, moving forward, on the back of lower interest rates; on the back of our income tax cuts; on the back of continued high infrastructure investment, including, and in particular, from the federal government; on the back of a pick-up in the resources sector; and on the back of a stabilisation in our housing market—in particular, in Sydney and Melbourne.
The proposition that somehow there is a difference in direction between monetary policy and fiscal policy is wrong. Fiscal policy and monetary policy are absolutely heading in the same direction, and we are dealing with serious global economic headwinds.
We have a plan. We're working through that plan. It's a plan that was endorsed by the Australian people at an election only a few months ago. They fundamentally rejected the alternative plan, and even the member for Port Adelaide, who is hardly known as a right-wing free-marketeer, is now saying that the Labor Party may have gone too far with its socialist agenda. Even Mr Butler now is concerned about the fact that Labor might have gone too far with its socialist economic policy agenda—he is very concerned about the fact that the former Treasurer, the now national president of the Labor Party, wants to protect Labor's socialist economic agenda—when the Australian people know that it would have made our economy weaker and it would have made all Australians poorer.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:36): Dr Lowe has made it clear that the Reserve Bank of Australia cannot do all the heavy lifting with monetary policy alone, telling the House economics committee:
One option is for fiscal support, including through spending on infrastructure.
Can the minister confirm the government is continuing to ignore the advice of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): We agree 100 per cent that monetary policy cannot do the heavy lifting on its own. We absolutely agree, which is why we put forward a plan to build a stronger economy in our budget, which is of course designed to deal with all of the challenges that we're facing in terms of global economic headwinds and in terms of the downside risks to the domestic economy. That is precisely what we're doing. We are lowering income taxes. We've legislated more than $300 billion worth of income tax relief. We have an ambitious infrastructure investment program. We boosted that from $75 billion to $100 billion in terms of infrastructure investment pipeline over the next decade. We have an ambitious free-trade agenda to ensure that our exporting businesses get better access to overseas markets to sell Australian products and services. We've got an ambitious agenda to reduce the cost of doing business through deregulation. We've got an ambitious agenda to bring down the cost of energy, moving forward, in order to make our economy more competitive—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cormann. The time for the answer has expired. Senator Kitching, your final supplementary?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:38): Australians are working harder and going backwards. When will the government finally heed the warnings of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and take action to stimulate the Australian economy?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:38): The Australian economy continues to grow. We are into our 28th year of continuous growth, unprecedented in any developed economy around the world—unprecedented. We are one of just 10 AAA rated economies. I'm surprised that Senator Kitching would ask me this question, because I'm sure she would share my concern that there are some in the Labor Party who want to blame the loss of the last election entirely on Mr Shorten, when what is actually to blame was their antibusiness, higher taxing, socialist politics-of-envy agenda, which a majority of Australians understood would have—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Senator Paterson: Are you objecting to his defence of Bill?
Senator Wong: No, I am objecting to the fact that he wants to talk about the Labor Party and not the Governor of the Reserve Bank. And, if you cared about Australians' jobs and incomes, you might want him to listen to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, too.
The PRESIDENT: I remind ministers again that any additional information they provide must also be directly relevant. Questions, however, that are not as specific as they were earlier today do allow ministers a wider range in answering a question and being directly relevant. You've reminded the minister of the question, Senator Wong. I call the minister to continue.
Senator CORMANN: The thing about fiscal policy is that it always comes down to alternative options in terms of the way forward. Our approach is: lower taxes, encouraging business, encouraging free enterprise, reward for effort, encouraging people to stretch themselves and get ahead and, indeed, ensuring that wages will grow on a sustainable basis. (Time expired)
Immigration Detention
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (14:40): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. Six days ago the Department of Home Affairs announced it was terminating its contract with Paladin Holdings, a company providing garrison, security and site-management services on Manus Island. The department says it is satisfied with the standard of services outsourced to Paladin on the basis of reports provided by Paladin, because only two visits were made by officers of the department to Manus in an 18-month period. Minister, $20 million a month is not chickenfeed. Did the department stop officers from visiting Manus? If not, what were the reasons officers from the department did not visit Manus on a monthly basis, as thought necessary by Ernst & Young?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:41): Senator Hanson, in relation to the very specific details that you have requested, I will take that on notice and get back to you. But in relation to the actual contracts, the PNG and Australian governments have both agreed to the extension of the contracts supporting the health, welfare and safety of transferees in Papua New Guinea, including the Paladin contract. This will provide the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Authority time to undertake an open-market, competitive procurement process for service delivery. Australia supports PNG's intent to assume responsibility for service delivery. The PNG Immigration and Citizenship Authority intends to undertake an open-tender procurement process to identify new providers. The process will be independently managed by the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Authority without any involvement from the Australian government. The governments of Australia and PNG will not provide ongoing commentary on future contract investigations. Senator, as I stated, I don't currently have any further details in the brief but I will get them for you if I can.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, a supplementary question.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (14:42): I'll be looking forward to that, because you didn't even go anywhere near it. I understand you'll get back to me. Actually, the media reports attributed safety concerns as the reason departmental officers were unwilling to visit Manus Island. Are you aware of that and, if so, what are those safety concerns?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:42): Senator Hanson, unfortunately I don't have a brief in relation to that, so I will take it on notice and revert to you.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (14:42): Again, you're not across this, hence my last question is: while the department plans to get a private company to do visa processing, how can I—and the Australian people—be confident that these billions will be well spent, given the poor supervision of the Paladin contract?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:43): Thank you for that question, Senator, and I'd refer you to the answer I gave in the first question which actually did answer that.
International Maritime Security Construct
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister please update the Senate on the importance of the stability of the global rules-based order that's behind the decision to make an Australian contribution to the International Maritime Security Construct in the Middle East region?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:43): I thank the honourable Senator for that most important question. The government has been deeply concerned about security incidents involving shipping in the Middle East in recent months. This destabilising behaviour does threaten Australian interests in the region. Like many countries, Australia relies on the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz for a substantial proportion of our energy supplies—in fact, 40 per cent of fuel used in Australia transits through the Strait of Hormuz. Freedom of navigation through international waters, whether in the Middle East or in our more immediate region, is a fundamental right of all states under international law. It is in Australia's interests to work with international partners to uphold these fundamental rights. That's why the government has reaffirmed its longstanding commitment to safe passage and freedom of navigation by announcing that Australia will contribute to the International Maritime Security Construct. This commitment comes after very careful consideration of Australia's national interest and after close consultation with our allies and partners. Also, I thank the opposition—Senator Wong and Richard Marles—for their constructive engagement in this process.
Australia's contribution to this international effort has three main objectives: first, the preservation of the rules based order; second, upholding freedom of navigation for the flow of commercial vessels through international waters; and, third, to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East. Australia's contribution will be modest, will be meaningful and is strictly time limited. It includes three elements. The first element is the deployment to the Middle East of a P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, which will be deployed for one month prior to the end of this year. The second element is a frigate, HMAS Toowoomba, which will be deployed in January 2020 for a period of six months. I can confirm that a small number of ADF personnel have now been dispatched to the headquarters. (Time expired
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:46): Minister, are there any further details you can share with the Senate about Australia's Defence Force contribution?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:46): As I was saying, there are three parts to our contribution. Our forward deployment has now gone to the Middle East, to the IMSC headquarters, to do some more planning for this activity. Australia's contribution to ease tensions in the Gulf builds on our longstanding contribution to the Middle East maritime security. In fact we've had a near-continuous maritime presence in the Middle East since the 1990s. Those opposite might yawn at this, but, I've got to say, Australia's contribution, and Australia's continued contribution by the Royal Australian Navy in particular, is no yawning or laughing matter. We've had a near-continuous maritime presence under governments from both sides of this chamber in the Middle East. When the frigate HMAS Toowoomba deploys, it will be the 68th such deployment of a Navy vessel in the Middle East on similar operations. HMAS Toowoomba will support the safe passage of maritime trade. It is something for us to be proud of, and not to be yawned at. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:47): Can the minister provide any further details about Australia's broader contribution to security in the Middle East?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:47): Australia is proud of its longstanding contributions to security in the Middle East. Despite the rather puerile interjections from those opposite, and their yawning and their comments, our service and our support is nothing—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: I would invite the minister to recall the bipartisanship on these issues and perhaps differentiate between people's views about her delivery and the content.
Senator REYNOLDS: Senator Wong, that is probably the most pathetic and disgraceful—honestly, I hardly even know where to start. Defending those opposite yawning and laughing at the contribution of our—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: No-one on this side devalues the contribution of Australia's service personnel—no-one! Please do not demean this parliament by making such an accusation; please do not. We can deal with what might or might not have been said, but I can say to you, Minister, that there is no-one on this side of the parliament or, I suspect, anywhere in this parliament who demeans the contribution of Australia's service personnel. You have engaged sufficiently with the Labor Party through this period, and you would know that. Can we please come back to some bipartisanship on this issue.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and party leaders get some discretion. Because of the subject matter I didn't call for points of order to be strictly points of order; I think the subject matter allowed that discretion for me.
Senator REYNOLDS: As I was about to say, we currently have over a thousand Australian men and women serving with great distinction in the Middle East. I am, and I know many in this chamber are, very proud of that. That also, I am very proud to say, includes over 100 reservists who are also serving us in the Middle East at the moment. I was greatly privileged to spend time with many of these members during my visit to the region in July. I was greatly impressed by their strong commitment to their mission and also the respect in which they are held by the people they serve with and those who they are working for. Something that we should all be very proud of is not only their service but the service and support their families provide. (Time expired)
Economy
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:50): I would like to firstly acknowledge the Northern Territory Minister for Primary Industry and Resources, Paul Kirby, in the gallery. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Pyne—Payne. I refer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics wage price index released on 14 August that shows wages growth continues to remain weak, growing by 0.6 per cent to the June quarter and 2.3 per cent over the year. Minister, can you confirm that this government has presided over the worst wages growth on record?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:50): I thank Senator McCarthy for her question although perhaps not for her introduction! I think it's fair to say that Mr Pyne would never have been a senator. In response to the senator's question, as I think the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Minister for Finance, has indicated, we saw wages growth historically being relatively strong and stable throughout much of the 2000s, with particularly pre-GFC through-the-year growth averaging over 3½ per cent. That grew by 2.3 per cent through the year to the June quarter of 2019, which is up 1.9 per cent from the June quarter of 2017, but it does remain subdued by historical standards. The finance minister acknowledged that in his earlier remarks today. We saw average earning on a national accounts basis, the AENA, another measure of wages growth, which is calculated as total compensation of employees divided by the total number of employees, increase by 0.9 per cent in the June quarter 2019 to be 2½ per cent higher through the year. We acknowledge, as I've said before and as others have in significant commentary, that this is very subdued growth, but it is on an upward trajectory.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Senator Watt: Yes, on relevance. Continuing the trend over the course of the day, the minister is not answering the question, which is simply asking her to confirm that the government has presided over the worst wages growth on record.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, as I've stated before, as long as a minister is being directly relevant—and the minister was being directly relevant—to the question, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. Senator Payne has concluded.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:52): In response to recent data, ANZ economist Catherine Birch has told the ABC:
With EBA's standard practice being three-year agreements, new ones locking in lower outcomes point to slowing wage growth.
Is Ms Birch correct that the record-low wage growth under this government will get even worse?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:53): I haven't seen those particular comments, but I do reinforce the observations I made earlier—that wage increases are continuing to outpace increases in the cost of living. Importantly, we see living standards also continuing to increase, with real net disposable income per capita rising one per cent to be 2.7 per cent higher throughout the year. To support that wage growth, the government is setting the right conditions for a strong economy and jobs growth. In particular, a healthy labour market will help to drive wages growth for workers, and that's why our employment record is so critical. Since the coalition came to government in September 2013, over 1.43 million jobs have been created in this country. Let me compare that to the six years prior, when unemployment increased by more than 205,000—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: It's on direct relevance—will record-low wage growth under the coalition get worse?
The PRESIDENT: I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. I was listening to the minister carefully. She had been speaking about wages growth. I consider that to be directly relevant.
Senator PAYNE: In response—in part at least—to the point of order, talking about employment, talking about jobs and talking about those aspects is actually addressing the question of the rate, the pace and the direction of wages growth.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question?
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:54): Given Australians are facing stagnant wages, record household debt, surging energy prices, increasing rental and mortgage stress and declining living standards, why won't this government act to reverse the worst wages growth Australians have seen?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:55): Senator McCarthy, I remind you again of the government's commitments and achievements in relation to employment growth, just for starters. We will continue to build on that proud record by creating a further 1.2 million jobs over the next five years. We will also—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne! Senator Wong is on her feet with a point of order.
Senator Wong: One question: why won't the government act to reverse the worst wages growth Australians have seen? I appreciate it's only 16 seconds, but at some point it would be good if a minister in this government could actually address the economic questions we're asking.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann on the point of order.
Senator Cormann: On the point of order, Senator Payne actually directly answered that question when she pointed out that wages were growing above inflation, supplemented by tax cuts increasing effective wages growth by even more.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Cormann is correct. What is also relevant is that, for a question that has a substantial introduction, the minister is entitled to answer any part of that question. Senator Wong repeated the conclusion of the question. I consider Senator Payne to be directly relevant to the question.
Senator PAYNE: Thank you very much, Mr President. As I was about to say, it is also important to understand, when we're talking about wages, that we're also talking about putting more money in workers' pockets, and, under the government's plans for lower taxes, workers will keep more of what they earn. In fact, they've already received some, leading to more choices and more opportunities. We've seen millions of taxpayers benefit from the $14 billion that's already flowed back into their pockets thanks to our tax cuts. When that full plan is rolled out—and we saw those opposite fighting tooth and nail against more money in workers' pockets—94 per cent of Australians will pay a marginal tax rate of no more than 30c in the dollar. Wage growth is ahead of inflation, and they refuse to acknowledge that. (Time expired)
Migration
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (14:56): My question is to the Minister Representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. Can the minister please advise the Senate on the importance of stability and certainty in our migration policies and how the Morrison government is keeping Australia's borders secure?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:57): I thank Senator O'Sullivan for what is a very important question because, Mr President, as you well know, on this side of the chamber we understand the fundamental importance of protecting Australia's borders. We understand that the first priority of the Commonwealth government must be to ensure the security of the nation and, as such, the security of the people. It is a fact that, if you cannot control your borders, you cannot govern the country.
Since 2013, since we were elected to office, we have progressively cleaned up Labor's border protection disaster. We have progressively put in place policies that have had the following effect: we have stopped the boats, we have removed the children from detention, we have stopped the deaths at sea and we have closed the detention centres.
What we also understand on this side of the chamber is that ensuring the integrity of Australia's borders is not easy. It involves tough decisions. It involves decisions that are necessary. Those decisions are necessary to ensure that we prevent those deaths at sea—1,200 deaths at sea that we know of under the previous government. Those tough decisions are necessary to ensure that we don't have to put children into detention.
What we have seen over the last two weeks in particular is that—led by the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Keneally, and backed up by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese—Labor have clearly marked their territory. They will backtrack when it comes to protecting Australia's borders.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (14:59): Can the Minister advise the Senate of any threats to Australia's border protection initiatives?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:59): Again, thank you to Senator O'Sullivan for the supplementary question. As we have consistently made it clear in these matters, if you blink, if you hesitate for less than a second, you send a very, very clear message to the people smugglers. You basically tell the people smugglers that Australia is reopened for business. It is not enough to just put in place the tough policies, to stop the boats, to stop the deaths at sea, to get the children out of detention, to actually close the detention centres; it is critical—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, on a point of order?
Senator Keneally: On relevance. The minister is talking about threats. Why isn't she talking about the 81,000 airport arrivals that have come in under her government—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on a point of order?
Senator Cormann: I think that was a frivolous, non-point of order, and I think you should rule it out of order.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you for the—
Senator Keneally interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally knows better than that. It was not a point of order on direct relevance at all. This is not the time to make statements.
Senator CASH: Mr President, the threat has just articulated itself—and that is, of course, Senator Keneally if ever she were elected to office as the Minister for Home Affairs. Senator Keneally does not understand the importance of securing Australia's borders. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (15:01): What are the consequences of abandoning bipartisanship on this important issue?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (15:01): One only has to cast one's mind back to the former Labor government, which, in conjunction with the Australian Greens, dismantled the border protection policies of the former Howard government. What did that result in? It resulted in complete, total and utter chaos on our borders.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Senator Cormann: Mr President, interjections are disorderly. Constant interjections are even more disorderly. I would ask you to call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
The PRESIDENT: For a Monday, the chamber has been particularly disorderly. Senator Keneally, I would ask you to bite your tongue for a while.
Senator CASH: Mr President, in relation to Senator Keneally's interjections, Senator Keneally is just proving time and time again that, in her capacity as the relevant shadow minister, she does not understand the fundamental priority of a Commonwealth government, which is to ensure the security of the nation and, in turn, the security of the Australian people. You cannot blink when it comes to border protection. Senator Keneally, time and time again, shows that she won't just blink; she will actually actively dismantle the policies that this government has put in place.
Senator Cormann: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Answers to Questions
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:02): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.
The performance today from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and his colleagues really goes to the heart of the concerns that Labor has around the government's management, or lack of management, of the economy. The economy is floundering on this government's watch; there is no doubt about it. They have been in office for six years, but they don't have a plan to turn things around. They got elected in May, but they obviously didn't go to that election with any view of how to manage if they won the election.
The key economic data that's come out since the election is apparently nothing to them—'There's nothing to see here. This is all expected. The economy is travelling well.' The fact is that the key economic indicators aren't great. We have economic growth at the lowest levels since the GFC. The government is presiding over stagnating wages. There are 1.8 million Australians looking for work or looking for more work. Household living standards have declined since 2013. Productivity is going backwards. Household debt is high. It surged to record levels, increasing by $650 billion under the Liberals to 190 per cent of disposable income. Business investment is down since the Liberals came to office and is now at the lowest level since the 1990s recession.
With all of these economic indicators, you'd think that this government would have a plan or would be putting together a plan or an agenda for dealing with this. But all we get from the government is, 'This is a test for Labor'. Everything is a test for Labor. Well, we want the government to focus on tests for the economy and to actually concentrate on the policies, the plans, the support that they can provide to the economy, because the economy matters. We can talk about all the statistics we like, but at the end of the day the economy affects all of us. When you've got the economic indicators that have been released since the May election, I think any responsible government would be looking at them with concern, not just crossing their fingers and hoping that the tax cuts—which Labor supported and which would have been flowing through the economy had Labor been elected—are going to do the job for everything. That is placing everything in one area, when it's clear that the problems and the global challenges that we all acknowledge are there are having a much more significant effect.
So, the test we are setting for the government is: what are you going to do about the economy? We can't keep accepting the line that everything's going okay, that there are some challenges but everything's going to shore up once the September quarter's results are in. We would say that there are things that you should be doing now. There are actions and steps that you should be taking now—not just writing a letter to the states and hoping they'll do something but looking at other levers available to the government. The Reserve Bank is doing what they can. Rather than pointing the finger at the private sector and urging business to take steps that they should be looking at—and if they can, then great—what is the government going to do? Bring forward part of stage 2?
Look at how you can bring forward infrastructure, particularly infrastructure in the regions where there aren't some of the supply constraints that exist in the cities. Look at whether you can bring some of those shovel-ready projects forward into these forward estimates. We know that 70 per cent of the government's infrastructure program falls outside this forward estimates. We know that the budget forecasts have changed, and they may have changed quite significantly, if we look at the Treasurer's comments on the weekend. Bring forward the budget updates so that all Australians can see exactly where we are and what the budget forecasts actually look like now. Look at responsibly reviewing Newstart. Engage in that conversation that the country is having without you. These are all things that could be being done, if there was a government that was prepared to accept responsibility for how to support the economy over the next little while.
It's not a test for Labor. This is not about the Labor Party. It's not about what the Labor Party went to the election over. This is about what happens for the economy going forward and how that translates into people's households. What does it mean for jobs? What does it mean for wages? What does it mean for household income? What does it mean for consumer confidence? What does it mean for household debt? What does it mean for savings? All the decisions the government should be taking at the moment should be focused on how to strengthen the economy and not just pointing the finger at others, like the Labor Party.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (15:08): Question time today offers us the opportunity to engage in an interesting thought experiment. What would have happened if, on 18 May, instead of Scott Morrison and the Liberal and National parties winning the election, Bill Shorten and the Labor Party had in fact prevailed? Would they, having succeeded in an election a few months ago, right now be implementing the economic plan that they took to the election, or would they be abandoning it? In particular, would they be proceeding right now through this very chamber their plans for $387 billion of new and higher taxes on the Australian economy? Imagine the consequences for Australian families, workers and businesses if that were the case—if, in the face of the global economic headwinds that Australia and the rest of the world confronts, the Labor Party were piling on top of that $387 billion of higher taxes.
Helpfully, we have an insight into what the Labor Party might have done if they had been successful at the election, and it comes in the form of an interview conducted this morning by Andrew Leigh on Sky News. You might remember that prior to the election Mr Leigh was a key member of the economic team of the Labor Party, although I don't believe he is any longer.
The reporter, Annelise Nielsen, asked him the very reasonable question: 'What would Labor do if they were in government today? Would they have been proceeding right now with their election plans?' After some dancing around the question, Mr Leigh argued that what the Australian economy needed right now was higher government spending. Now, this could only be delivered in one of two ways. It could be delivered through their plan for higher taxes on the Australian economy, or it could be delivered with higher debt. Unfortunately, Mr Leigh didn't share with Sky News viewers or Australians exactly which side he came down on. Was he in favour of Labor's higher taxes or more debt delivered by the Labor Party for future generations to pay? So, unfortunately, we are none the wiser as to which side of the debate raging within the Labor Party at the moment Mr Leigh would fall on. Does he fall on the side of Wayne Swan, who says: 'Full steam ahead. No problems here. Nothing to see here. A great election policy platform that we took on the economy should be retained whole-heartedly'? Or does he fall on the side of Mr Butler, who says, 'Actually, guys, I think there might be good reason to review the policies we took to the election'?
The question the Labor Party is grappling with is: was it the economic policies they took to the election, was it the social policies they took to the election, or was it the leader they took to the election that cost them the election? The disturbing thing for those on the opposite side of the chamber is: the answer to that question may be 'all of the above'.
Of course, as Senator Cormann outlined in question time today, the government is very well aware of the uncertain global economic environment that we're operating in, and we have a strong economic plan that deals with that situation. It was outlined only a few months ago in the budget, and it was subsequently endorsed by the Australian people. Unsurprisingly, we are not going to be following the Labor Party's economic advice here. We're not going to be adopting either the policies they took to the election or the new policies they now advocate in light of the election result. We will be sticking to the strong economic plan we outlined.
It is important to put in context Australia's economic performance. The national accounts show the Australian economy has now completed its 28th year of unbroken economic growth. That is a world record and something which all Australians should be very proud of. It is a reminder that we do, in fact, have a remarkably resilient economy, and it is a repudiation of those who seek to talk it down. In advance of the release of the most recent national accounts, there were many commentators who said Australia would have a negative quarter of growth, and they were quickly proven to be wrong. Real GDP grew by half a per cent for an annualised rate of 1.4 per cent. In average year terms, real GDP in fact grew by 1.9 per cent through 2018-19.
The government is very proud of the economic plan that it took to the election and which has been endorsed by the Australian people. It includes immediate and meaningful personal income tax relief for the Australian people, which has been warmly received, judging by the record tax returns that have been submitted to the ATO, and the billions of dollars that have flowed into household family budgets around Australia. So we won't be adopting the Labor Party's plans in this instance.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:13): Those opposite are now in a third term of government. They have been in control of the nation's economy for six years. That's six long years for the Australians who are working longer and harder but just can't seem to get ahead. Like a bird trapped in an oil slick, the harder they work, the more they try, the more they 'have a go'—to quote the Prime Minister—the worse their situation seems to become. The economy is floundering. It has all but ground to a standstill; 'moribund' is another description. The economy is growing at its slowest rate since the global financial crisis. Wages have flatlined. Almost two million Australians are looking for work or cannot get enough hours of work. The nation's productivity is going backwards, and this is having real world effects on people's living standards.
These are not abstract measures. Australians are hurting. And all the while the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, day in, day out, give their Pollyanna pronouncements that, 'You've never had it so good.' Tell that to Australians who are choosing between paying record electricity bills and buying their kids school essentials. These are the children, by the way, to whom this government is leaving the legacy of paying down the debt that this government doubled. Remember, federal government debt is now more than half a trillion dollars. The government, with the Greens political party—who I like to think of as the party of all care and no responsibility—voted to remove the debt ceiling. And what was the consequence of that? The federal government debt is now at more than half a trillion dollars. This is the government that would tell you that they naturally occupy the treasury bench. They are not good economic managers, and they have not been so in their various terms of government. Tell that to the anxiety ridden workers who are terrified about job security. Tell that to families who are struggling with the increasing cost of child care.
This is a government that may have a political plan—and we're seeing that with the reprosecuting of legislation from the last term—but it doesn't have an economic plan. The Treasurer is playing roulette with the livelihoods of the Australian people. He is so desperate to have a surplus recorded against his name that he's willing to put the whole economy, not to mention the aspirations of Australians, at risk in order to do so. God forbid there's a downturn in resource prices! And let's face it: with the Vale mine now going back online and increasing its production, what we're going to see is that the iron ore prices that have kept our economy going will start dipping. We've actually built our economy on a disaster in a Brazilian valley, which killed about 300 people earlier this year. Iron ore, priced at $72 a tonne at the time of the lethal sludge slide, started steadily increasing as Vale's production slipped. It reached about $122 a tonne. It's since dipped to $91 a tonne, but this is still 65 per cent higher than the $55 a tonne forecast by Treasury for the current financial year. When Vale comes fully back online, iron ore prices are going to start dipping and our economy will go further backwards than it already has.
The Reserve Bank governor, Dr Philip Lowe, has already warned that the Reserve Bank is not able to jump-start the ailing economy alone. They are not able to do it by themselves. The RBA has already cut interest rates to one per cent, many times lower than we experienced during the darkest depths of the global financial crisis. Dr Lowe has called on the government to intervene—a call that has been repeated by Labor—to bring forward planned infrastructure spending, increase Newstart payments to some of the most vulnerable, and stop attacking our industrial relations system, which protects workers from exploitation and ensures that they are treated fairly. It is, after all, the unions who uncovered the mass exploitation of workers, particularly in the hospitality industry.
If this government were serious about stimulating the economy and promoting economic growth, we on this side of the chamber would be happy. We are not in government, but we would be very happy if the government were to take on the responsibility that comes with sitting on the treasury bench. But it has not done so. This is a government with no agenda and no plan for the country. They went to the election with the promise of a tax cut— (Time expired)
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (15:18): I'd just like to acknowledge the family of former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer here in the gallery. If Tim had been here, he would have understood the importance of not talking down our economy, whilst understanding the significant impact that the drought is having on GDP and the devastation that is occurring across much of western New South Wales and Victoria, affecting so many farmers.
If Australians had gone to the polls, as they did a few short months ago, and elected a Shorten government, we would've seen $387 billion of new taxes, and we know what impact that would've had on our economy. It certainly wouldn't have seen the continued positive growth in outlook and resilience in the economy and the improving business confidence that we're seeing with the re-election of the Morrison government. And only on the weekend we saw Wayne Swan, now the national president of the Labor Party, come out in support of keeping all the tax cuts that Labor took to the last election, saying that losing the election had nothing to do with the economic plan, the killing off of aspiration and the destruction of the dreams that Australian families so often have. He said it was all Bill's fault; Bill was so unpopular, and that's why Labor lost. Chairman Swan encourages the Labor Party to tax and spend and stay true to those socialist values.
These two weeks will show why the Morrison government was re-elected—why Australians opted to return a Liberal-Nationals government as the stable and reliable choice, and in the face of many challenges we're facing as a nation—in the face of global headwinds economically, in the challenges that we face across the world and internally and domestically with issues like the drought. We'll see why Australians continue to stick with the Morrison government, who will deliver a clear plan and deliver on the promises that we made, versus a Labor Party that's conflicted and tarnished by scandal, whether it's ICAC in New South Wales and the Aldi bags full of cash, whether it's the Setka sit-in happening in Victoria at the moment, or Jackie Trad in Queensland and whatever department she sits over. And again, Tim would probably be quite interested in Queensland Rail, as the dispute goes on up there.
Labor just don't seem to know what they stand for any more, or whose side they stand on. Is it the side of workers or the side of families? It's certainly not on the side of aspiration, and Australians saw that last time. Thankfully, most Australian voters took the advice of Chris Bowen and they decided not to vote for Labor's policies. We were, of course, very grateful for that, and the Australian economy continues to be grateful for that. On taxes and budget, on border protection, on union power and on work and welfare, Labor can't tell you what they believe or whose side they are on. There's no certainty and there's no consistency. But also these days you can't tell who's calling the shots in Labor. We saw, as the poll came out today, that Albo continues to slide down the polls—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, I have given you a fair amount of leeway. You need to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles.
Senator HUGHES: The Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, continues to fall down in the polls. But we're getting on with the job, and the proof is in our agenda. You'll see that over the coming fortnight with the bills that we're going to bring forward: ensuring multinationals are paying their fair share of tax, stopping the abuse of workers' entitlements by unions and employers, preventing the misuse of welfare and helping more Australians get into jobs through the expansion of the cashless debit card and trialling mandatory drug-testing for welfare recipients. We're going to protect farmers from activists as they illegally trespass on their land. We're going to prevent child exploitation with new mandatory sentencing laws for offenders and we're going to outlaw uncompetitive practices from big energy companies, delivering lower prices for Australian families.
And that's the big difference between the coalition and Labor, and that's why Australians made the right choice. The cashless debit card is something that I'm particularly keen to see enforced, having lived in a rural and regional area where we saw significant social and economic issues, children who were suffering with alcohol abuse and drug abuse within the community, and high levels of welfare dependence. We're going to make sure that we find the best ways of supporting people and families, that children receive the services and the access to the materials that they need, and that they're getting the proper food and the access to school equipment that they require, as opposed to allowing welfare funds to be spent on gambling or alcohol. These funds are more appropriately spent on the family. We've also seen the statistics that have shown youth unemployment has dropped significantly in areas where the cashless debit card has been introduced, and we hope to see that continue into the future.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:23): I rise to take note of answers to questions asked by Senator Wong and Senator Gallagher. Before I go to that point, it's good to follow Senator Hughes—perhaps she should have lost another couple of pages of her notes and winged it a bit! She certainly does better on her feet than reading puerile notes. In question time today, it appears to me that we asked a question about the economy to the Minister for Finance and the other appropriate minister, and the answer from the government was, 'Were you elected, things would have been worse.' I hardly see that that is an answer to a question that's legitimately asked. It is a legitimate question asked not only by the Labor Party but also by every section of economic commentary—that is, what should we be doing right now?
Senator Kitching went to a very valid point. The disasters that have happened to Vale have certainly impacted on the iron ore price, and we are the world's largest iron ore exporter. The contribution to GDP was 13 per cent growth in the year to the March quarter. So we're certainly doing very well out of metallurgical coal, thermal coal and iron ore, and rightly so. We've got the most efficient production systems in the world, and we've got access to very big markets. So our quality product is buoyant, and it is keeping the economy going.
But when you look in this chamber and see the type of legislation that comes through this chamber and you say, 'What is the government's agenda since its victory on 18 May?' you find the government saying: 'Oh, I think we're going to improve the economy by bringing in some drug testing for some welfare recipients. I know: we'll do some more robo-debt. That'll boost the economy.' These are things which governments need to prudently do, but they're not going to bounce the economy.
The argument is that the tax cuts haven't washed into the economy yet, and that probably is a fifty-fifty argument. Harvey Norman are saying they haven't seen it come into their accounts. Maybe people didn't take that tax cut and go and buy a new TV. Maybe they put it aside because they know things are getting a bit tougher. Maybe their earnings are a bit flatter—and we do know that real wage growth is stagnant and declining. So maybe the boost that Senator Cormann and others are waiting for after the $15 billion is paid into the economy by the ATO isn't coming. Maybe people are saving that money. Maybe they're paying it out in higher electricity bills, higher school fees or higher transport costs—all manner of things.
We do know that young Australians are in danger of being the first generation in memory to have lower living standards than their parents' generation. Think about that. The Grattan Institute's Generation gap: ensuring a fair go for younger Australians report found:
Today's young Australians are in danger of being the first generation in memory to have lower living standards than their parents' generation.
It's not hard to look around to see young Australian who are working not one job or two jobs but three jobs to make ends meet. There is massive underemployment, particularly for under-30s. If you do get out into the suburbs and places where young people talk and share their experiences, it's extremely difficult to find regular employment outside labour hire companies. There's a lot of casual employment and labour hire employment, and people are struggling to make ends meet. They don't get 50 or 55 hours of work; they get 15 to 20 hours of work, which doesn't sustain them, and then they have to go and look into other opportunities.
So it's a curious argument when we have three speakers on the other side who are asked: 'What are you doing about what looks like a flatlining economy being bolstered by a buoyant minerals sector? Are you looking in the looking glass or down the road to make sure that we don't come into a crash and don't have a recession, which would throw lots of people out of work?' We have 750 jobs about to go at Virgin. You don't have to look around too far to know there are testing times in the economy, but the answer from the government and the government senators over there is, 'Oh, if you were in there, it would be a lot worse.' Well, I've got to remind you: you're the government. You need to have policies in place that protect the Australian public. You need to have far-sighted policies. You need to look at the infrastructure pipeline. What is the point of having a surplus in a stagnant or declining economy? You're contributing to more stagnation and more decline. If you have a surplus in a growing economy, everybody can clap and cheer, but a surplus in a declining economy is not right.
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:28): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Natural Disaster and Emergency Management (Senator McKenzie) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to climate change.
Right now there are people in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales whose lives have been turned upside-down—people who have lost their homes. Many people have experienced what can only be described as a severe trauma in being exposed to unprecedented wildfires that are ravaging parts of those states. Indeed, we know that these bushfires have led not only to the loss of property; livestock has been lost, and we know that more of our precious biodiversity is being pushed closer to the edge of extinction. In the midst of that, we see the brave and heroic actions of emergency service workers who are doing everything they can to militate against the loss of life and property.
One would think that, given such a horrendous situation, this government would be doing everything it could to ensure that we prevent further tragedies like this from happening in the future. Yet, despite the fact that we know the effects of climate change not just from the science but from the emergency service workers themselves who have been imploring this government to act on climate change, when pressed on this, this morning on Radio National, the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management was asked a very direct question about whether he believed that human-induced climate change was contributing to these fires—his response: 'It's irrelevant.' It's irrelevant, in the view of the minister charged with protecting the lives of people, as to whether we're doing something that may indeed be contributing to these fires. It's irrelevant, according to the minister, that we could be burning fossil fuels in this country, contributing to worsening wildfires and extreme weather, putting the lives of emergency services personnel and ordinary Australians at risk.
Of course his comments are in direct contradiction of emergency service workers themselves. We saw 23 emergency service chiefs from all states and territories come together and make it very clear that they expect governments to act on climate change or their jobs will be harder and they themselves will be at greater risk. The science is clear. Emergency services personnel are making their voices heard. We had the public health community, the AMA and doctors, saying that it's time we acknowledge a climate emergency, and yet here we have a government committed to increasing the use of fossil fuels when we know that coal is the single biggest contributor to climate change.
Australia's pollution has never been higher than it is right now. We are pumping more heat into and trapping more gas in the atmosphere and our oceans than at any other time in human history, and the government's plan is to increase our coal and gas exports. Gas exports are the biggest driver of this increase in pollution in our atmosphere and have wiped out all of the gains that we've seen as a result of the transition to renewable energy.
Australia is now not just the biggest exporter of coal but also the biggest exporter of LNG, and both parties are on a unity ticket here. Despite the fact that the International Energy Agency have said that the world can't have one single new fossil-fuel project or we blow our carbon budget, what's been the response of the government? Full steam ahead with the Adani coalmine. Last week, Joel Fitzgibbon was spruiking the Narrabri coal seam gas project, which farmers are dead opposed to because they know what it means for them and for their local communities. We've got Senator Canavan travelling the world and trying to shore up declining markets for thermal coal. We know why they're so wedded to the coal, oil and gas industry. It probably has something to do with those millions of dollars in donations flowing straight out of the profits from the coal, oil and gas industry and straight into the bank accounts of the Liberal-National and Labor parties. What we have in Australian politics right now is a duopoly doing the bidding of an industry that is fuelling dangerous climate change and putting at risk right now the lives of ordinary Australians who are being impacted by rising pollution and increasing bushfires.
The message is clear: we need to transition our economy away from coal, oil and gas, and we have to start addressing the causes of climate change if we're going to reduce the threats that ordinary Australians face each and every day.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Dean Smith to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges all recent recipients of Australian Bravery Decorations;
(b) notes that the Bravery Medal is awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances;
(c) recognises the following Western Australian recipients of the Bravery Medal: Mr Leon Corey Brouwer, Mr Jason Troy Shepherd and Mr Andrew Gordon Strunk;
(d) notes that the Commendation for Brave Conduct is awarded for other acts of bravery which are considered worthy of recognition;
(e) recognises the Western Australian recipient of a Commendation for Brave Conduct: Miss Ella Layne Andrews;
(f) notes that the Group Bravery Citation is awarded for a collective act of bravery by a group of persons in extraordinary circumstances that is considered worthy of recognition; and
(g) recognises the following Western Australian recipients of the Group Bravery Citation: Mr Robin John Lee, Mr Jake Wilson Pugh and Mr Ian Trevor Urquhart.
Senator Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the ProductStewardshipAct2011, and for related purposes.
Senator Sterle to move on the next day of sitting:
That a copy of the final report entitled, BiosecurityImportsLevy:AWayForward, dated May 2019, by the Biosecurity Imports Levy Industry Steering Committee be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, by no later than 3 pm on 12 September 2019.
Senators Siewert and McKim to move on 17 September 2019:
That the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019, made under the AgedCareAct1997, be disallowed [F2019L00511].
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the first week of September was Early Learning Matters Week, which highlights how early childhood education supports the well-being of our children, families and society; and
(b) supports a well-resourced and accessibly early childhood education system with professional pay for staff.
Senator Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 25 August marked 50 years since the sinking of the cargo ship MV Noongah,
(ii) the MV Noongah sank in heavy seas off Smokey Cape, South West Rocks, New South Wales in 1969, two days after leaving Newcastle bound for Townsville,
(iii) the wind was blowing in excess of 70 knots (110 km) per hour and the sea at almost 10 metre waves,
(iv) the 26 man crew abandoned ship just 14 minutes after a distress signal was transmitted,
(v) a four day search and rescue was conducted with only 5 survivors and 1 body being pulled from the water,
(vi) the search was one of the largest in Australian maritime history involving five destroyers, three mine sweepers, seven aircraft, two helicopters and Australian-flag and international merchant vessels, and
(vii) this tragedy was marked on its 50th anniversary on 25 August by family members and others at a memorial site at Smokey Cape, New South Wales;
(b) recognises that the anniversary of this tragedy is a reminder of the bravery of Australia's maritime workers and the risks of the work they undertake daily for the benefit of the nation; and
(c) offers its condolences to the families affected by the sinking of the cargo ship MV Noongah and to all people impacted by maritime tragedies.
Senator Faruqi to move on 16 September 2019:
That the Australian Education Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, made under the AustralianEducationAct2013, be disallowed [F2019L00558].
Senators Di Natale and Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep concern that:
(i) in August, the Indian Government decided to revoke Kashmir's special status and its relative autonomy under India's Constitution, further eroding Kashmiri's right to self-determination,
(ii) the Indian Government shut down phone and internet connections, arbitrarily detained political leaders, evacuated tourists, restricted freedom of movement and oversaw an influx of tens of thousands of additional troops to Kashmir, and
(iii) these actions risk a dangerous escalation of violence in the world's most militarised region;
(b) expresses solidarity for the many Australian Kashmiris who have been deeply worried about their loved ones in Kashmir;
(c) further notes that, in response to the three wars between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, the United Nations has unequivocally called for Kashmiri's right to self-determination; and
(d) urges the Australian Government to call on the Indian Government to respect the human rights of the people in Kashmir, withdraw military forces, end the mass lockdown and the Kashmiri's right to self-determination. (generalbusinessnoticeofmotionno.98)
Senator Seselja to move on the next day of sitting:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the PublicWorksCommitteeAct1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as soon as reasonably possible:
Fit-out of leased premises for the Australian Federal Police at 140 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne Victoria.
Senator Seselja to move on the next day of sitting:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the PublicWorksCommitteeAct1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as soon as reasonably possible:
HMAS Watson Redevelopment, Sydney New South Wales.
Senator Seselja to move on the next day of sitting:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the PublicWorksCommitteeAct1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as soon as reasonably possible:
Navy Capability Infrastructure Sub-program: Facilities and Infrastructure to Support New Navy Capabilities.
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the CustomsAct1901, and for related purposes. CustomsAmendment(SaferCladding)Bill2019. (generalbusinessnoticeofmotionno.99)
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) on 12 October 2017, Mr Richard Boyle made a disclosure under the PublicInterestDisclosureAct2013 (PID Act) as a former employee of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), alleging the ATO:
(i) had instructed employees to issue standard garnishee notices to seize funds from taxpayers' bank accounts without notice or consideration of their personal and business circumstances, and
(ii) in doing so, had required employees to engage in conduct that was unethical, unprofessional and against the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct;
(b) on 27 October 2017, the ATO decided not to further investigate Mr Boyle's disclosure on the basis that the information did not concern serious disclosable conduct as defined in the PID Act; and
(c) subsequent media inquiries found anomalies in the ATO's debt collection practices that appeared consistent with Mr Boyle's disclosure.
(2) That the Senate is of the opinion that examining the ATO's actions in relation to Mr Boyle's disclosure is consistent with the Senate's role in providing oversight of government administration.
(3) That the Senate orders the Commissioner of Taxation to provide all documents relating to the disclosure generated or received by Mr Boyle's supervisor, authorised officer and principal officer (as defined in the PID Act), including but not limited to notes, minutes, memoranda, letters, other external or internal correspondence, emails and/or Microsoft Office Communicator conversations, to the Economics Legislation Committee (the committee) by no later than 5 pm on 16 September 2019.
(4) That the committee, when it has considered the documents, report to the Senate as to whether the ATO's handling of disclosures by whistleblowers warrants further inquiry.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that today, 10 September 2019, is World Suicide Prevention Day, which this year seeks to 'shine a light' on suicide prevention;
(b) notes that, in 2017, 3,128 people in Australia died from self-harm, which equates to 8.57 deaths per day and a 9.1% increase from the following year;
(c) expresses concern that, in 2016, 47% of all suicides occurred in rural and remote regions, and First Nations peoples had a rate of suicide approximately twice that of non-Aboriginal people;
(d) acknowledges that the highest risk factor of a future suicide attempt, is a previous attempt;
(e) further acknowledges that working together to prevent suicide, raise awareness and encourage conversations is important, and that:
(i) everyone has a role to play in preventing suicide and the choices we make today can help prevent suicide,
(ii) we can all make a difference in the lives of those who might be struggling by having regular, meaningful conversations about life's ups and downs,
(iii) you do not need to be an expert to reach out – just a good friend and a great listener, and
(iv) you do not need to be a clinician, a GP, or a nurse to check-in with someone you are worried about;
(f) recognises that it is better to reach out than avoid the person for fear of getting the conversation wrong; and
(g) urges all Australians to help shine a light on suicide prevention.
Senators Siewert and Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that new research from Monash University on the health of Disability Support Pension and Newstart Allowance Recipients found:
(i) Disability Support Pension recipients were 18.3 times more likely to rate their health as poor compared to wage earners,
(ii) more than two-thirds (69.1%) of Disability Support Pension recipients reported having mental or behavioural problems compared with 21% of wage earners,
(iii) only 19% of Disability Support Pension recipients reported having seen a psychologist in the preceding 12-month period, and
(iv) Disability Support Pension recipients were at 2 to 3 times the risk of visiting a hospital than wage earners; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) investigate ways to improve the health status of people receiving Disability Support Pension,
(ii) deliver more targeted and effective health services that address the health needs of people on Disability Support Pension, and
(iii) make access to the income support system simpler and less stressful for disabled persons.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that just one week after winter, Queensland is experiencing unprecedented and devastating bushfires and facing what the fire service has described as the most catastrophic bushfire season in recorded history,
(ii) that hundreds of people have been affected by the devastating fires – to date, 47 properties have been reported as damaged or destroyed, including the heritage-listed Bina Burra resort, and prior to these bushfires, a total of 40 properties had been lost to bushfire in Queensland in the previous 130 years,
(iii) the critical role that firefighting and emergency services personnel play in the frontline response to emergencies and climate-related disasters,
(iv) that the Bushfire and Natural Hazard Cooperative Research Centre's latest Seasonal Bushfire Outlook, August 2019, confirmed that Queensland fire seasons have been starting earlier and persisting longer since 1990,
(v) that drought conditions and severe water shortages in the Darling Downs and Granite Belt are expected to make fighting bushfires even more difficult across the summer, and
(vi) that, unless urgent action is taken to reduce harmful emissions and stop further global warming, bushfires, drought, and heatwaves will become more frequent and severe, putting Australian lives and properties at risk; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) urgently take action to address climate change and manage the risk and severity of bushfires,
(ii) invest in community adaptation efforts to build resilience to climate change in moderate and high risk areas, and
(iii) commit to action to progress a rapid and just transition to clean and renewable energy sources to reduce the harmful emissions driving climate change.
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Bureau of Meteorology has stated that the current drought in the Murray-Darling Basin is the most severe on record and that the climate crisis is a contributing factor,
(ii) drier and warmer conditions are likely for most of mainland Australia during spring,
(iii) the fire season started two months earlier than usual in New South Wales and Queensland with increased fire risk in south-east Australia in the coming months, and
(iv) water storages in the northern Murray-Darling Basin are at 7%; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to protect Australian farmers by taking urgent action to address the climate emergency.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes a study entitled Lotsoflosswithlittlescrutiny:TheattritionofhabitatcriticalforthreatenedspeciesinAustralia, which was published on 8 September 2019, and found that:
(i) Australia has one of the worst extinction rates of any nation, yet there has been little assessment of the effect of the EnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999 (EPBC Act), to prevent species extinction,
(ii) 7.7 million hectares of potential habitat for terrestrial threatened species, terrestrial migratory species, and threatened ecological communities has been cleared between 2000 and 2017,
(iii) of this loss, 7.1 million hectare (93%) was not referred to the Federal Government for assessment,
(iv) this non-compliance means that potential habitat for terrestrial threatened species, terrestrial migratory species, and threatened ecological communities have been lost without assessment, regulation, or enforcement under the EPBC Act,
(v) additionally, when an action has been referred, most habitat loss has been approved, sometimes with conditions, and therefore has resulted in large areas of cumulative habitat loss,
(vi) the EPBC Act is ineffective at protecting potential habitat for terrestrial threatened species, terrestrial migratory species, or threatened ecological communities, and
(vii) without strict, comprehensive application and enforcement, as well as explicit guidance and requirements, policies such as the EPBC Act will remain ineffective at regulating habitat loss and protecting biodiversity;
(b) notes that:
(i) last week, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) revealed that the Federal Government authorised the clearing of north Queensland woodland, despite its own environment department finding it was likely to destroy habitat critical to the vulnerable greater glider – former Deputy Prime Minister Mr Joyce had written to the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, asking for no unnecessary intervention under the EPBC Act in relation to the land clearing,
(ii) GuardianAustralia recently revealed that a company part-owned by Mr Angus Taylor, MP and his brother were under investigation by the Department of the Environment and Energy for alleged unlawful destruction of critically-endangered grasslands when Minister Taylor met with departmental staff, including a compliance officer investigating the clearing allegations, and he also approached the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, about amending the critically-endangered listing of the grassland species, and
(iii) the ABC revealed last year that the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, ignored advice from his own Department that he should reject an application for the Toondah Harbour apartment and marina proposal in Queensland because of the damage it would do to an internationally protected wetland, home to critically-endangered migratory shorebirds, instead allowing the project to progress to the next stage of assessment; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) implement the study's recommendations, including that when scientifically determinable, critical habitat is demarcated for listed species and communities, which provides absolute protection that is enforced, monitored, and investigated by the regulator,
(ii) ensure that the current review of the EPBC Act address its fundamental failure to actually protect the environment, biodiversity and conservation, and
(iii) audit all decisions made by Mr Frydenberg in his capacity as the Minister for the Environment and Energy, as they relate to land clearing and critical habitat destruction.
CONDOLENCES
Fischer, Mr Timothy Andrew (Tim), AC
The PRESIDENT (15:34): It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 22 August 2019 of the Hon. Timothy Andrew 'Tim' Fischer, AC, former Deputy Prime Minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Farrer, New South Wales, from 1984 to 2001. Before I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I'd like to acknowledge Mrs Judy Fischer and Dominic and Tony Fischer in the chamber with us today.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:34): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the death of former deputy prime minister and member of the House of Representatives the Hon. Timothy Andrew 'Tim' Fischer, AC.
Leave granted.
Senator CORMANN: I thank the Senate, and I would also like to welcome Tim's family with us in the chamber today. I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 22 August 2019, of the Honourable Timothy (Tim) Fischer AC, former Leader of the National Party, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in the House of Representatives and Ambassador, places on record its gratitude of his long service to the Parliament and the nation, and extends its profound sympathies to his family in their bereavement.
A giant of this parliament, a giant of the National Party, Vietnam War veteran, Leader of the National Party, Deputy Prime Minister, ambassador to the Holy See, husband of Judy, father to Harrison and Dominic: there are so many ways to remember the late, great Tim Fischer. But, above all, we remember Tim as a humble man who always wanted to help people; a man whose passion for regional Australia, contributions to gun reform, service in the Vietnam War, and love of trains and Akubra hats made him one of the most loved politicians of his generation.
As a politician, Tim's life mirrored that of a train journey: there were many stops along the way. His often hectic schedule of visits to branch meetings and functions earned him the affectionate nickname 'Two-Minute Tim'. He would often arrive, speak for a couple of minutes, chat to the people present, or colleagues, and then depart for the next stop on his busy schedule. But he never forgot a name and was always listening to the community. He understood the value of people in his life. He listened, gave his attention and always remembered. It was his way with people that made him universally popular.
When Tim announced on 30 June 1999 that he was quitting as Deputy Prime Minister to spend more time with his two young sons, sustained applause broke out in the House of Representatives at the conclusion of his farewell. The standing ovation extended for more than a minute and included even those who thought poorly of his rise to the top of the Nationals nine years earlier. He had won them all over. Tim was a titan of rural Australia, a true man of the people, who saw opportunities and seized them, and our country is a beneficiary of his work.
Tim was born to Barbara and Ralph in Lockhart, New South Wales, on 3 May 1946. The third of four children, he grew up on the family property and attended Boree Creek Public School before becoming a boarder at Melbourne's Xavier College. He battled intense homesickness during his time at Xavier College. His heart was in the country. It was where he belonged. After spending summers at home in Lockhart, he would take the long train journey back to Melbourne. This gave Tim some solace. From a young age he loved trains and remained enthusiastic about them until his recent passing. His move from the country to the city was the first of many.
In 1966 Tim was conscripted into the Australian Army as part of national service. He trained at Scheyville and served as a second lieutenant in 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. Tim served in the Vietnam War, fulfilling the role of transport officer as well as platoon commander. In 1968, during the Battle of Coral-Balmoral, he was wounded by rocket fire. An explosion tore out a piece of his shoulder, and his life was saved by a flak jacket when shrapnel also hit him in the chest. What our country owes to that flak jacket! He finished in the Army in 1969, but his time in uniform was only the beginning of his service to our country.
Tim returned to the Riverina and took up farming at Boree Creek. He became active in the Country Party, as the Nationals were then known. In 1971, at the record young age of 24, Tim entered the political arena through the New South Wales parliament. He was the first Vietnam War veteran to be elected to any Australian parliament.
After 13 years in state politics, Tim contested and won the seat of Farrer at the 1984 federal election. His victory was significant and unprecedented—a feat not repeated since. In winning the seat of Farrer, Tim became the first and only National Party member for the electorate, which has otherwise been held by Liberals since its creation in 1949. Tim held the seat until his retirement in 2001. Tim quickly gained popularity in his party and the parliament. Within a year of entering the parliament he was on the opposition frontbench, and he only continued to rise. In 1985, he became the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and gave a voice to those who, like himself, had fought in armed conflict. Tim served in parliament and in Vietnam, which speaks volumes about the person he was.
In 1990, the boy from Boree Creek, as Tim was dubbed, was elected as the Nationals new leader after Charles Blunt lost his seat at the general election. As can often be the case in our profession, quite a number of political commentators had views in relation to Tim's elevation to Nationals leadership and in fact questioned the National Party's decision to install Tim as leader. Tim defied the sceptics, successfully managing his party and the coalition relationship to the benefit of each and the country. He provided stability for the coalition when the leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party was passed from John Hewson to Alexander Downer to John Howard. In his personal life during this time, I'm advised that Tim was courting fellow National Party member Judy Brewer. He and Judy married in 1992 and had two sons, Harrison and Dominic.
In 1993, Tim became the shadow minister for trade. His politics on this subject were different to many of his National Party colleagues. Unlike many Nationals of his period, Tim was an internationalist, not a protectionist. He was comfortable with the economic and trade approach that was perhaps more known from within the Liberal Party. He understood the value of broadening Australia's footprint beyond our shores.
In 1996, Tim reached the peak of his political career, becoming Australia's Deputy Prime Minister when John Howard returned the Liberal and National Party coalition to government. He retained the trade portfolio for which he had responsibility in opposition and forged closer relationships between Australia and Asia. He made particularly close political friends and allies in Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia. Tim enthusiastically sought to place rural Australia on the world stage. He visited railway stations in cities from Pretoria to Tehran to, as he said, 'get a feel for the standard of living and quality of infrastructure in countries off the beaten track'.
Tim's most significant contribution in public life was on the domestic front. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, he stood shoulder to shoulder with John Howard in championing better gun laws for Australia, which made and continue to make Australia and Australians safer. This was a difficult issue for Tim, and he showed great political courage and strength. The reforms elicited a fierce backlash in the bush and inside the Nationals. The rural base said no, and rallies against gun control included effigies of Tim. But he didn't flinch. Tim took a strong moral stand on the issue, not a political one. To him it was about 'taking out of the suburbs of Australia the semi-automatic and automatic weapons that should not be in the suburbs of Australia'. Under the reforms, more than 700,000 firearms were surrendered to police and destroyed during a gun amnesty and buyback. More Australians are alive today as a result of these changes, and recent events elsewhere in the world underscore the importance of these reforms to this day. Tim also navigated the rise of the rival One Nation party, working with John Howard to ensure the survival of the Nationals and stabilise the Australian political landscape.
In 1999, Tim announced he was stepping down as Deputy Prime Minister and moving to the backbench. He was doing so to spend more time with his family. That was the type of man he was, always considering the needs of others. Tim left politics altogether in 2001, and rounded out his professional life as a tourism executive and with an ambassadorial appointment to the Vatican. From the backblocks of rural New South Wales to Vietnam, and from the halls of parliament to the home of the Catholic Church, Tim left an indelible mark. He fought for his country, in war and in politics, and we are forever indebted to him for his service. Tim also fought very publicly for his son Harrison, who was diagnosed with autism as a child. Tim shared Harrison's inspirational story with the nation, and was proud that Harrison has reached a level of independence and contentment in his life. Sadly, Tim could not win his own battle with leukaemia.
For his contribution to our country, Tim was, very appropriately, farewelled at a state funeral in Albury less than two weeks ago. Fittingly, he arrived on a train. With his end in sight, Tim had reached back to a happy childhood memory of the little 'Tin Hare' railmotor and arranged for his own funeral train. The railmotor carried his coffin for 100 kilometres to his service: one last ride for the avid rail enthusiast. The train driver, Kevin Schultz, said he had never seen anything like it. All the way, people stood along the track and in the paddocks and on the railway platforms of the little towns waving Akubras and Australian flags—thousands of people, all of them coming out for Tim. When the train finally pulled into the platform at Albury, another thousand or so Australians were there waiting to pay their respects. The farewell was reminiscent of his send-off in parliament in 1999. Tim was as popular with the public as he was with his parliamentary colleagues. To Judy and the boys, Harrison and Dominic, on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian Senate, and in tribute to a much-loved Australian, we in this place join in offering our sincerest condolences. May Tim rest in peace.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:47): I rise on behalf of the opposition to express our condolences following the passing of the Hon. Timothy Andrew Fischer, AC, Tim Fischer, a former member of the House of Representatives and former Deputy Prime Minister. As we mourn his death, I convey our sincere condolences to his family and friends, and particularly extend our sympathies to his wife, Judy, and his two sons, his wider family and many friends, especially those with whom we serve in this parliament.
Australians share a lot of fond memories of Tim Fischer. Some of these are the famous Akubra, the tie collection, the laconic speech and an endless enthusiasm for railways. But, beyond these impressions, Tim Fischer was a complex character. He could be as enigmatic as he was idiosyncratic—he was the trade minister who bucked protectionist history and helped to navigate the next stage of trade liberalisation; the National Party leader who looked to advance the national interest; a man who served at the heart of federal government but remained humble to his roots. John Howard described him as an authentic character. It was this authenticity, something that by its nature cannot be manufactured, that endeared him to so many people, and perhaps explains in part the wave of sadness in so many parts of the country that accompanied the announcement of his passing.
Born in Lockhart in the Riverina in New South Wales in 1946, his early education was at the Boree Creek Public School and he maintained a connection to this place, including in how he was described, all of his life. Later he completed his education at Xavier College in Melbourne and, of course, a formative experience of his 20s was his military service, as officer of the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, both in Australia and Vietnam between 1967 and 1969. During his time in the House of Representatives, he was one of a very small number in this place with an active service history.
As a relatively young man, still in his 20s, Mr Fischer successfully entered the New South Wales Legislative Assembly as the Country Party member for Sturt, and later represented the electorate of Murray. Over 13 years he served mostly in opposition, owing to the success of Neville Wran's Labor government in that period, but this gave him the chance to refine his parliamentary skills and to hold portfolios across a range of areas—conservation, water resources, transport, forests and corrective services. But state parliament was just one stop on Tim Fischer's journey of public service. In 1984 he successfully contested the division of Farrer for what by that time was known as the National Party, and entered the House of Representatives. At that time the seat ran from the border with South Australia, along the Murray River, all the way through Deniliquin and Albury to Mount Kosciuszko. His state parliamentary experience enabled him to join the federal opposition frontbench almost immediately, and, in the 12 years that followed, he took on a succession of portfolios including veterans' affairs—to which he could bring profound personal experience—energy and resources, and trade. In 1990 he was elected the Nationals' parliamentary leader. He took on the role in the face of some scepticism about his capacity for the job, and he would later delight in reminding others of their misjudgements.
Tim Fischer became Deputy Prime Minister on the election of the Howard government in 1996. At that time he served as the Minister for Trade, continuing what at that time had been a long tradition of this position being held by the Nationals—dating back to Black Jack McEwen in 1956. He took on this role after the sweeping trade liberalisation reforms of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments that helped deliver lower tariffs, higher living standards and higher wages for working people, and elevated Australia's multilateral engagement. In today's world of rising nationalism and populist protectionism, all of us should recall that Tim Fischer was not a protectionist; he was an internationalist. He saw the survival of the regional economy and communities as dependent on engagement with international markets. He did not envisage an Australia that was shut off from the rest of the world. At a time when some were questioning Australia's place in the world and seeking to turn us away from Asia, he acted to form stronger relationships with the region. This was particularly the case with Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia, incorporating bilateral and regional approaches into the broader multilateral agenda.
In the days since his death, many have reflected on what was undoubtedly Tim Fischer's finest quality—that is, his courage. It was his courage that set him apart—his willingness to put the national interest ahead of his own political interest and to stand up for what he thought was right, even when it meant disagreeing with his own constituencies. Tim Fischer's courage was most demonstrated by his advocacy on two issues: guns and race. On guns, with Prime Minister Howard and Opposition Leader Beazley, he recognised that the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 had to be a catalyst for change. This event was a national tragedy. But the leadership and cooperation displayed across geographical and political borders in its wake to bring about the National Firearms Agreement was a national success. There is a reason bipartisan support for these initiatives is so critical. Telling people that they will no longer be allowed to access or do something they previously were able to do isn't easy. Gun owners don't like having their guns taken away; this was certainly the case in National Party heartland. But Tim Fischer acted not out of his own political interest but in the national interest. He responded by taking the argument for the national buyback and gun law reform to the places that found the message hardest to hear. As a consequence, Australia's gun laws are amongst the best in the world and Australians are safer.
On race, Mr Fischer again did not buckle in the face of challenge. I have spoken in this place on past occasions of the importance of rejecting racism and right-wing extremism in Australian politics—a key issue of national importance. Tim Fischer, supported by others in the Nationals, like former senator Ron Boswell, was part of the rebuttal of the far Right political movement in Australia. Again, he acted in the national interest—often against the advice of others who sought a more accommodating arrangement with individuals and political parties espousing such views.
He was the only government minister to sign Labor's parliamentary code of race ethics. And, by describing certain interventions on race as 'divisive, dumb and wrong'—pretty pithy, hey—he set about isolating such views and ensuring they remained outside of the political mainstream at that time. It should be remembered that there were those in the then government who were countenancing the accommodation of these perspectives. The National Party had a particular connection to many of the constituencies that extremists sought to influence, making it all the more important for courageous leaders within its ranks to take a principled stand against what these extremists stood for. Such a principled stand against those whose views and policy prescriptions are divisive and wrong looks even better in hindsight. His courage is an example his successors should reflect upon—an example all of us should reflect upon. At a time when debates about racism and freedom of speech are still present in this country, Tim Fischer's position has been vindicated and is an important element of his legacy.
After standing down as Nationals leader in 1999, Tim Fischer remained on the backbench until departing at the 2001 election. At this time, he was an observer during the independence process for Timor-Leste—something about which he later wrote. One thing he didn't do when he left parliament was fade into the background, and, whilst his retirement from politics enabled him to devote a greater amount of time to family and especially his beloved sons, it also enabled him to continue to serve the nation and advance causes large and small. He also didn't lose touch with politics. A number of new Nationals politicians have doubtless been recipients of his wisdom in many ways, including that contained in, I understood, a tip sheet that he sent when they were first elected to the parliament—10 tips which ranged from the very practical, such as when to travel to Canberra and which ABC Radio news bulletins were most important to listen to, to guidance on how to survive a life in politics. These pointers included ways to maintain good contact with non-political friends and, consistent with Mr Fischer's global outlook, the recommendation to select a country, preferably within Asia, for detailed contact and study. He finished with: 'Enjoy it all.'
Following from his experience as Minister for Trade was his appointment by the Rudd government as Australia's Ambassador to the Holy See, holding the position between 2009 and 2012, the first resident ambassador of our country in the Vatican. He contributed to Australia's successful campaign for election to the United Nations Security Council in 2012, a priority of the then Labor government. He also served as chair of Tourism Australia and the RFDS, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and was the author of a number of books. Many of these particularly reflected one of his great passions in life: trains. The ways in which he weaved this fascination into so many elements of his life demonstrate some considerable skill. He even managed to organise a special steam train from the Pope's platform during his time as Ambassador to the Holy See. It was a passion seamlessly coupled to his love for people. Train travel took him everywhere within Australia and abroad but especially in his post-political life. It is inseparable from the impact his presence, contribution and enthusiasm had on so many Australians.
It is the stories of these people that perhaps most vividly demonstrate the personal qualities of Tim Fischer. Following his death, one railway enthusiast spoke of how he waited on a dark station platform in the north of my home state, South Australia, seemingly in vain, only for a train to arrive and Mr Fischer to emerge with a donation for a local heritage railway. Nothing was too much. He'd often be heard on ABC Radio with Macca on a Sunday morning—a program that truly speaks to the whole of the country—calling in to update listeners on a particular railway anniversary he was helping to celebrate or a special excursion he was participating in. One such trip was organised in the month before his death. Chronicled on Australian Story and elsewhere, it was a one-off trip that raised funds for the cancer centre in Albury-Wodonga and took him back to Boree Creek where the local park was named in his honour. Of course, that wasn't his final journey. As my friend Senator Cormann has outlined, Tim Fischer's passion was reflected to the end when his body was carried by heritage railmotor to Albury ahead of his state funeral service.
Tim Fischer and I don't have completely compatible political views, and there are some matters on which history shows that he didn't make the right call—his position on native title and the Wik decision, for example—but he deserves to be well remembered and well honoured for his selfless and tireless contribution to our nation inside and outside of the parliament. He loved Australia, its back roads and its branch lines, and Australians loved him, especially in the bush.
Tim Fischer was always grounded in what he thought was right for all Australians, and this goes to the heart of the matter, because today we are acknowledging someone who was guided by the national interest ahead of political convenience and who on some critical issues had the courage to take the route that was right even when that was not the journey of least resistance, and it was to the benefit of our nation that he did so. We are better for his service. As I farewell Tim Fischer again, I express the Labor Party's condolences to his family and friends.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:00): Thank you for everybody's contributions. As Leader of The Nationals in the Senate, I rise today to acknowledge the passing of the former leader of our party and deputy prime minister and Minister for Trade, Timothy Andrew Fischer AC, who passed away on Tuesday 22 August, 2019, at the age of 73—too soon. I'd like to acknowledge Judy and Dominic and Tim's brother, Tony, who are in the chamber today, and I'm sure Harrison's listening at home. We know Tim Fischer was an admirer of the great Australian leader Sir John Monash, a cause many of us in this place supported him on. I note that it was Sir John Monash who said:
Adopt as your fundamental creed that you will equip yourself for life, not solely for your own benefit but for the benefit of the whole community.
Those words from so long ago describe well the life of Tim, almost universally regarded as a great modern Australian leader. Tim Fischer was first foremost a dedicated family man, and I say to his family: I hope you can all take solace in how much he loved you and how well our nation loved him.
After serving in the Vietnam War, Tim Fischer farmed at Boree Creek in the Riverina before beginning his public service as the member for Sturt and then Murray in the New South Wales parliament, the first Vietnam veteran elected to an Australian parliament. Tim represented the electorate of Farrer for 18 years, nine of them as Leader of The Nationals, and he served as Deputy Prime Minister from 1996 to 1999. He will be remembered as a stoic leader of The Nationals who acted with integrity and intellect. He was able to connect with people from all walks of life. He had a truly great gift as a communicator. He was respected by all sides of politics, and he was a fearless and ferocious advocate for rural and regional Australia.
Tim Fischer set the standard for doing what he believed was right rather than what was easy when he championed sensible gun reform in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy. His stand in that chapter can never be overestimated. He remained strong and presented his case in the face of hostile crowds and angry constituents he vowed to represent. It was real courage under fire, as was his fight against One Nation during this period of Australia's political history. Tim never wavered, he never backed down and he never changed his stance. It was hard. It was a challenge he was willing to accept and one he was unwilling to postpone. He did both of these things, as Senator Wong alluded to, because he believed it was right and it was in the national interest.
After politics, Tim continued to promote Australia at home and around the globe. He worked tirelessly for St Vincent de Paul, the Fred Hollows Foundation and Autism New South Wales and as Australia's first resident Ambassador to the Holy See. Whether chomping on a Stanley-grown apple, checking his cattle at Mudgegonga or developing strategies to secure food for humanity, agriculture was never, ever far from Tim's mind. In 2013 he joined the Crop Trust, and he was vice chair of the board till 2017, when he became chair. He was elected for a second term as chair in 2018 but stepped down on doctors' advice. Tim delivered seeds from Boree Creek, of course, to the Global Seed Vault in Norway, and he often spoke to me of how it was this unbelievable facility for the world to secure seed banks. He was deeply passionate about that contribution. He was also patron and a former chairman of the Crawford Fund, which supports international agricultural research. He was a consultant, author, broadcaster and bushwalker. He was envoy to the Himalayan nation of Bhutan, to Eritrea and to South Sudan and, of course, an avid train enthusiast, which people have spoken about already. His tremendous contribution to Australia was recognised in 2005 when he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia.
In his maiden speech, Tim Fischer outlined his vision as a National Party member for Farrer. On Tuesday 26 February 1985 Tim said his intent was:
… not only to provide full-time representation for all electors in Farrer but also to seek better the wellbeing of our nation through less government and less taxation and the encouragement of individual enterprise—
A principle those in the National Party all uphold. As the rookie member for Farrer did in his first address in parliament, I too quote a long-serving Australian conservative leader, former Prime Minister Menzies, who said:
The great race of men is that one in which each individual develops his fullest individuality, in which ambition is encouraged, in which there are rewards for the courageous and enterprising …
Tim Fischer epitomised this and more. Ambitious? No doubt; you don't step off the tractor in the Riverina and become leader of Australia's second oldest political party without a certain level of personal drive and ambition, and Australia knows that Tim Fischer was a man of incredible courage. He had a sharp mind attuned to finding new solutions to old challenges—an enterprising leader if ever there was one. As an individual, he was one of a kind. In an environment dominated by egos and extroverts, Tim Fischer stood out and stood tall—a giant of humility, compassion, hard work and leadership. In parliament, he endeavoured to stand up for the have-nots, be they farmers from Balranald or Berrigan, or the young unemployed from the Lavingtons and the Liverpools.
As a politician, he knew the value of relationships with the media. He was universally loved by the fourth estate, especially those journalists across rural and regional Australia. Some in the media coined a phrase for those in public life who seemed overly fond of seeing their name in print or on the telly. They referred to them as 'dial a quote'—talent the media can always count on to get a headline or grab a story whenever they dialled. But, as usual, Tim Fischer was different. Perhaps Tim was the master of reverse psychology with the media, because he always used them to get his message out, rather than the other way around.
For his beloved ABC Radio Tim would often phone on a Friday or a weekend, because he knew Monday bulletins were often light on content. He would say: 'Greetings, Tim Fischer here. Are you ready to record? Okay; 3, 2, 1,' and then he'd deliver a fault-free 30-second grab on what he had decided was to be tomorrow's news of the day. There was no need for cutting or editing, nor any option; he'd given them his gold. He'd then repeat the process for the 15-second grab. He'd do that just once and expect the ABC to share the audio; Tim would phone every region with a message tailored to their particular audience—a very National Party response, because all politics is hyperlocal. Then he'd repeat the process with the papers, instructing the reporter who answered not to record but instead to: 'Take this down. Ready? Start.' Tim knew rural and regional media needed content years before the 24-hour news cycle. I'm talking back in the days when multiplatform publishing meant he was reading train timetables from Sydney and Melbourne rather than what we're used to today.
The Border Mail in Albury-Wodonga was Tim's local paper, serving the readers of Farrer during his parliamentary career and the north-east of Victoria following his retirement. Among their many pages dedicated to Tim Fischer recently was an account which showed his masterful grasp of messaging, networking and the art of maintaining a positive relationship with the media. The writer, Jodie Bruton, recalled a day in the spring of '94, arriving late to the Berrigan Community Golf and Bowling Club and therefore missing the National Party leader's talk entirely. Off the stage, Tim Fischer was busily scribing notes before he gathered up his belongings and, on his way to the car park, he handed her a beer coaster on which he'd noted the key points from his speech. It must have been Tim's trial run for Twitter, more than a decade earlier. He passed the pub test that day as he did every day of his life, and that was Tim—enterprising and making sure his message reached as many as possible.
Many families across the Riverina in northern Victoria had heard of Tim Fischer the farmer long before he became a national household name. Former National Party member for North Eastern Province in the Victorian Legislative Council David Evans told me of the story of how he'd come to hear of Tim Fischer. It was actually a strategy that David employed later in life as well. He recalled listening to the local radio in northern Victoria, 40 years ago, as callers rang in from around the district with their rainfall figures—your local ABC, no doubt. Mrs McCormack from Cheshunt South phoned in, having reported 3½ inches—I wish she could do it today. David told me that the caller he heard on immediately after Mrs McCormack went something like this: 'Greetings, Tim Fischer here to report 26 points at Boree Creek.' That was really the start of Tim connecting with the broader community and using the media positively to do that.
Tim was forever a gentleman and a diplomat. He always made it his duty to thank his hosts at country functions he attended across the country. He was a generous and trusted sounding-board for me and for many inside the National Party and beyond, providing perspective and sound counsel on issues affecting rural and regional Australia. He even helped out in the recent federal election, despite his health difficulties, and he was inspiring at every single moment—yes, authentic; yes, courageous; his commitment to agriculture and the growth and development of trade in this country can never be underestimated.
Thank you for your comments today—the genuine love for a man who loved his nation. He loved his party and he loved his family. The Australian Senate and the Nationals—the Australian parliament—are forever changed and are better for his contribution. Thank you for sharing him, Judy and the boys. Our sincerest condolences—a great patriot.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:10): I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to pay tribute to the life of former deputy prime minister and Leader of the Nationals Tim Fischer, and of course we send all of our thoughts and sympathies to his wife and children.
I didn't know Tim personally. Others in this place are far more qualified to speak to his life than I am, but I'll keep it brief. Suffice to say that my impression of Tim Fischer is of a thoroughly decent and honourable human being. Of course, the legacy that is most often attached to his time in public life was carrying his party through what was at the time a hugely controversial piece of legislation—that is, tightening up the gun control laws following the Port Arthur massacre. No doubt there would have been some on his own side who, at the time, were accusing him of politicising the tragedy, but he showed guts and determination. He stood up to some of his colleagues and of course to some of his political supporter base. But it seemed to me that Tim Fischer drew strength from knowing it was the right thing to do for the broader Australian community, and I never doubted for a moment that, even where we may have disagreed, he believed he was fighting for Australia's national interest.
And that's what leadership is. Leadership is being prepared to take a stand, sometimes on an issue that is unpopular with your own constituency, and it's leadership that is so often missing from today's political debate. Again, he stood up loudly against the politics of hatred and division. He stood up against extremists who were prepared to use race in their effort to divide our community. He was a strong supporter of multicultural Australia and recognised the huge contribution that many communities made to Australia and particularly to regional communities. He clearly drew courage from his convictions, even in post-political life. I came across a quote from his wife Judy, where she told the ABC that he 'finds it hard to hold back'. She said:
Tim has found it hard to retreat when there are so many really critical issues, particularly in rural Australia with the drought, climate change and all the things we see every day as farmers.
He clearly was somebody who was committed and was prepared to take a stand on the things he believed in. We disagreed with him on his approach to the Wik decision, which found that native title could co-exist with pastoral leases. I often wondered whether, over time, his view on that may have changed, seeing the way that legislation had played out. Perhaps that's a discussion for another time.
His interests were really wide and eclectic. Of course, he's well known as parliament's biggest train enthusiast. There was the strong association with the Kingdom of Bhutan, street names and so on—his advocacy for more support for children with autism. The list is long. He clearly was a person who was fascinated by the world. He soaked it all up, and he was here because he wanted to make the world a better place. We could all learn from that. It's something we should respect and that will resonate with many of us. I hope to see him at the next train station sometime soon—perhaps not too soon, but sometime soon.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:14): I too would like to honour the life of the Hon. Tim Fischer. Tim's penultimate speech to the House of Representatives was in response to a motion condemning the September 11 attacks. In his contribution Tim expressed his confidence that:
The United States of America will recover from this human tragedy …
And he said he was:
… quietly confident … Australia will play its part and … do so in honour of those who have died, been injured and been so seared in a direct way …
His statement carried weight given that, years before, Tim Fischer had fought alongside Americans in Vietnam. In later years Tim was critical of parts of that war, including the indiscriminate use of Agent Orange, which had perhaps contributed to the cancer that ultimately killed him. However, he volunteered for that war with dignity and a sense of duty.
Tim's life was a living example of duty—duty to his nation through the service of war, duty to his home of western New South Wales as a member of parliament at both state and federal levels and duty to his family through his early retirement from parliament and of being Deputy Prime Minister at the age of just 55 to spend more time with his family and especially to care more for his autistic son. Others have focused in more detail on Tim's biography. I wanted to spend more time on the lessons that we can learn from his life, and perhaps that's the best way we can pay our respects to those who have passed. In the case of Tim Fischer, the lessons come more from not what he did but how he did it. He was respectful but determined, quirky but effective and humble but an overachiever. He did achieve much, especially in his portfolio of trade.
It is a common myth that the National Party is anti free trade. In fact, the National Party—like its predecessor, the Country Party—is the only party in this parliament that was formed on an explicitly free trade basis. In the first coalition agreement between the Country Party and the then United Australia Party, the Country Party successfully fought for the removal of tariffs on 465 items of machinery not made in Australia but necessary for domestic industries, especially farming. Tim was a worthy successor to this tradition. He was a committed exponent of the benefits of free trade and integration in our region. He travelled to over 60 countries in just three years as trade minister. He was a broader exponent of the benefits of free enterprise and supported the economic reforms the Australian government pursued during the 1980s and 1990s. And those reforms have helped deliver nearly 30 years of uninterrupted economic growth.
Supporting those reforms took political courage given the opposition to them concentrated in some rural areas, especially in industries like sugar and dairy. As Tim expressed, though, in his first speech to parliament, he was committed to 'seek to better the wellbeing of our nation through less government and less taxation and the encouragement of individual enterprise'. He quoted John McEwen, who put it more bluntly, that he was 'for free enterprise, against socialism'.
However, Tim always believed in pursuing what he believed was the right thing for the country, not just the popular thing. That was evident in his pursuit of gun restrictions after the Port Arthur massacre. It is a shame, though, that some seek to reduce the Howard-Fischer years to simply these reforms or at least seem to comment that that decision was the only good thing done in those years. It was an important and controversial decision of that government but not its only one over that period. Tim's advocacy was courageous in light of significant opposition to those reforms and the clear political cost exacted on the National Party at the time. At the 1998 election, the Nationals' vote dropped from over eight per cent to below six per cent. While it has recovered since, it still remains well below the peak pre gun-reform years. Perhaps Tim's greatest legacy is that we have fully rejected a gun culture in Australia. Guns have their use on farms, but we are all safer for the fact that Australians as a rule do not see the need to have guns outside of limited economic or recreational use.
These are just some of the examples of where Tim pursued what he believed was right over the popular. His persistence was not constrained to his parliamentary life, however. After parliament he continued to pursue platforms in his respectful and persistent fashion. He was a forceful advocate for greater rail investment, especially a fast rail between Sydney and Melbourne, and he was a famous supporter of the achievements of General Sir John Monash and believed Monash should be awarded a posthumous promotion to field marshal. Both of his campaigns on these issues have failed so far, but few have fought so hard for so long for such causes. Tim went to the great length of writing four books on just these two issues. Whatever one thought of the merits of his positions, no-one could fault him for his unceasing efforts.
Some have said that every day in politics is a test of character. It is a test that Tim passed with flying colours. In a life spent in the service of duty, it was apt that Tim's last speech in the parliament was not a grand farewell but words of duty in his role as acting Speaker:
My thanks, my pleasure and my privilege . I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
As we adjourn Tim's amazing contribution to Australian life, it is our privilege to have his example for us as a lead.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:19): I rise to contribute to the condolence motion for former deputy prime minister Timothy Andrew Fischer. I rise to do so both in honour of his service and as a fellow New South Wales resident and a Catholic. I will come to both of those shortly.
Mr Fischer came to this parliament having already served his country during the Vietnam War and his community in the New South Wales state parliament. He was held in high regard by parliamentarians from both sides of the chamber, who recognised his immense convictions and dedication to his constituents. During his time in Canberra, he was a tireless advocate for rural Australians, particularly those from the Riverina, where he was born and lived much of his life. Many of the tributes we've seen since his passing have touched on Mr Fischer's immense passion for his community and the tireless energy he spent meeting those who he represented. His press secretary, David Kelly, once remarked:
No-one would believe that somebody could pack so much into one day, do so many things and still come out at the end of the day with some sense of where he'd been, what he'd said and who he'd said it to.
It was this dedication to his constituents and his duties, his authenticity, that made him an important and valued voice both in this parliament and the broader community. Upon Mr Fischer's retirement as The National Party leader in 1999, Labor leader Kim Beazley said of Mr Fischer:
You are one of the very genuinely loved people in this place … You are going to be very much missed by us.
These traits that earned him this universal respect didn't fade with time. Mr Fischer was interviewed in 2013 by British comedian John Oliver. Oliver was visiting Australia to film a short series on our gun laws and went to the former Deputy Prime Minister's farm to speak with him. Oliver recounts that he and his film crew arrived to find that Mr Fischer had made vegemite sandwiches for everyone. Halfway through the filming, Mr Fischer got up and excused himself. He had to unload some livestock that had just arrived. Oliver remarked:
It's the first time I've ever had an interview stop because a truck of cows turned up.
Such was his way—a man of genuine humility and warmth, complete unpretentiousness. They were traits which endeared him to his community and the Australian people.
That interview with John Oliver was on a topic that would be part of Mr Fischer's enduring legacy. As we know, he held the office of Deputy Prime Minister on that fateful Sunday in April 1996 when 35 people lost their lives at the hands of a gunman in Port Arthur. That shocking massacre would be a turning point in our nation's history. In the aftermath, the government responded swiftly with a significant suite of reforms that were designed to tighten our gun laws in this country and prevent further tragedies. Even today, these gun laws remain a catchcry around the world for the very best that we can achieve in politics.
However, they were not without controversy. Mr Fischer was at the front line of the campaign to win support for these reforms. The strongest opposition often came from Mr Fischer's own core constituency: rural Australians. Footage from the time shows the level of vitriol this debate fomented. Signs labelling Mr Fischer a traitor were splashed across the media, and a group in Gympie even erected an effigy of the then Deputy Prime Minister, but he was undeterred. He appeared in front of extremely hostile crowds and argued in favour of the exact thing they opposed. No amount of personal abuse swayed him. He even visited Gympie, despite the welcome he must have expected that he would receive. It's difficult to understate the importance of Mr Fischer's voice in this debate. An extremely well-respected rural MP lending his weight to the push for gun control was pivotal to the successful passage of these reforms. This is true both with his efforts within the public arena and inside his own party room. His efforts have undoubtedly saved countless lives and made our country a safer place for all Australians.
The truth is that Mr Fischer could have stayed silent in this debate. The bipartisan support for the legislation in the Liberal Party and the Labor Party could have carried the day, but he made a conscious decision as a leader not to. As Kim Beazley remarked at the time:
But you chose not that easy road out; you chose to lay your leadership on the line and persist in a course of action which was right for the country.
Our current Deputy Prime Minister said on his predecessor's role on the gun control debate:
A lesser person perhaps might have wilted, a lesser person might have said this is a bridge too far, might have objected, and we wouldn't have had the tough gun stance that we took necessarily then.
Fortunately for our country, our friends, our family and our children, Mr Fischer was not a lesser person. His resolve in the face of concentrated opposition, especially from the very communities he so often championed, was immense, and we, as a country, owe him a great deal for his bravery and determination.
Mr Fischer retired from the parliament in 2001 but would remain active in the public square. He served as chair of Tourism Australia and the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and he was appointed as Australia's first resident Australian Ambassador to the Holy See, in 2009. This is when I first came to know him, as I had the honour of serving as the government spokesperson for World Youth Day in 2008 when his appointment as an ambassador was announced. As a devout Catholic, Mr Fischer served not only as an ambassador in service of his country but also in service of his faith. He played a vital part in bringing those two strands of his personality together—his commitment to his country and his faith—in organising the canonisation ceremony for Mary MacKillop, our country's first saint, in 2010. After this appointment he went on to serve as an envoy to several countries for the Australian government until 2012.
In his retirement, Mr Fischer continued his work on perhaps his greatest passion—his love of trains. Few people write one book; he wrote several. It's a testament to his immense intellect, passion and energy that this was a constant theme throughout his life. It was appropriate then that he took one last train ride to his funeral in Albury in New South Wales—a farewell that echoed with kind words about the man who lived such an exceptional life and changed so much for those around him. My condolences are with his wife, Judy, their sons, Harrison and Dominic, and his extended family and friends. Mr Fischer was an extraordinary Australian; indeed, an extraordinary New South Wales person. He will be remembered equally for his character as for the immense contribution he made to our country.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:27): I never knew Tim Fischer when he was in parliament. He left politics before I became involved. He'd been a giant on the political stage, but it was for much more personal family reasons that our paths crossed, and it's for that community that I want to acknowledge Tim. My former boss and dear friend Bill Heffernan introduced me to Tim Fischer when my son was diagnosed with autism. I still remember the phone call when Bill told me that Tim had a son with autism and that Tim was probably on the autism spectrum himself. But it was said with such love and affection, in a way that only one country bloke could talk about another. Whilst I had conversations with Tim about autism, our sons and what the future would hold, for me it was always more about the hope and comfort that Tim provided not only to me but also to a whole host of parents who were struggling with their child's diagnosis.
Like so many Australians, I watched that final Australian Story on Tim's life. Tim and Judy, like so many families, were given the grim diagnosis, devoid of hope and a future for Harrison. They were told, 'Your son has autism. He'll probably never live independently. He'll probably never have a job and he'll probably never do the other things that other children or adults do.' Unfortunately, this is the story that far too many of us as parents hear. With an autism diagnosis still being quite a subjective process and responsiveness to therapy the great unknown, children can move up and down the spectrum throughout their life and continue to learn. But, like so many other extraordinary autism parents, determined not to let the diagnosis define their family, Tim and Judy worked tirelessly for Harrison. I know it would have been of great comfort to Tim in his passing knowing that the extraordinary young man that Harrison has developed into is an independent one at that. Harrison works part-time as a technology assistant at his former school and is a mentor to other children on the autism spectrum. Harrison knows every electorate and sitting member in federal parliament. His prodigious memory also extends to sporting statistics, planes and Pokemon. In my house, it's Godzilla, New York, suspension bridges and fishing. Tim and Judy worked hard to also pay it forward for the families coming behind them, to show that autism is a different, not lesser, way of seeing the world. I also loved my talks with Tim about Dominic and my other children, Millie and Rupert, about how autism siblings are the best, and we should be telling more people about that. It is because of the Fischer-Brewer family and others like them that autism is no longer hidden. Those on the spectrum have much to contribute. With the right supports, they can make a significant contribution to the community around them. It is because of their efforts that families like mine could find comfort and support.
I find that much of the commentary around Tim's quirks and eccentricities have missed the point. Those of us who understand the world of autism know that trains, modes of transport and his amazing ability to recall all the timetables of those modes of transport was just a part of his special interest. As a parent of an autistic son, it gives me great hope for Fred's future to see how wonderfully Harrison is thriving in life. But it is not just that. The fact that a man as beloved and intelligent as Tim, a man who identified himself as mildly autistic, can rise to the top echelons of our government and effect such great change shines a bright light on all of our children on the spectrum, and what they might be able to achieve in their future.
Tim, you were a brilliant politician but also an incredible parent. I thank you for the path you laid open to our autism families and all the members of your autistic tribe. Rest in peace.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (16:31): It is a privilege to speak today on the condolence motion for Tim Fischer. I acknowledge Mrs Judy Fischer, Tim's brother Tony and son Dominic Fisher here today. When I was state secretary for the National Party in Queensland, Tim had already retired and much has already been said of his career to that point. But he was famous for attending party events, and ending up in the kitchen, listening to the gossips and the news, and he always listened far more than he spoke—a rare and important gift.
After retirement, Tim returned to his great passions—his family, Judy Harrison and Dominic, and farming Boree Creek. He gave fully and selflessly—as he did in every interaction—to charity work, assisting organisations such as the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Fred Hollows Foundation and Autism New South Wales. Tim served as Chairman of Tourism Australia from 2004 until 2007. He was made a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering in 2000. He served as chairman and patron of the Crawford Fund, an initiative of the ATSE supporting international agricultural research. He was Vice-Chair and Chair of the Crop Trust, and a vigorous supporter of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. He served as national chairman of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. He also served as founding patron of Australia for UNHCR, an Australian charity that raises funds for the UN's refugee agency.
Last year I attended the Rural Press Club to hear Tim speak on one of these many passions, and on this occasion it was the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. In his own inimitable way, he made the subject fascinating, and talked at length on seeds, crops, new methodologies and international advances in irrigation. He held the crowd in the palm of his hand for an hour and a half.
Last year, Tim, along with fellow rail enthusiast Everald Compton, visited my parents, Don and Chris McDonald, south of Cloncurry. Everald reported the visit as follows: 'Tim announced at breakfast that he had discovered on Google an old mine and the remains of its railway that operated a century ago in a remote place in the mountains between Cloncurry and Mount Isa. He invited Don to take us out there in one of his helicopters. To make a long story short, we spent a fascinating morning crawling through crumbling tunnels and down old mine shafts, with Tim constantly proclaiming what a great engineering feat it was to have built all this by hard human labour, without machinery all those years ago. He yearned for Australia to revive that nation-building spirit, and asked Don and I to join him in leaving messages in a bottle that he hid in one of the tunnels. He then speculated how long it might take for someone to find it.'
On my preselection to the Senate, and again following the election last year, Tim rang me to congratulate me. The number of people who tell stories of him calling or writing amazes me—how much time and interest he took in so many people's lives. He had earlier offered to provide me with a testimonial for my preselection, but with his characteristic innate understanding of Queensland politics he wryly added that I may not want to use it, given that he was from New South Wales.
Two weeks ago, while walking down the street to Tim's service, a man stopped me and asked me what was going on. Upon hearing that everyone was gathering for Tim Fischer, the man answered simply: 'He was a good man. He did a lot for us and for Australia. He will be missed.' I don't know that I can add much more than that. So thank you for your wisdom, your courage, your leadership, your support and your friendship. It has been an extraordinary privilege to know you. To quote Everald again: 'May there be trains in heaven.'
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:36): As I rise to speak on this condolence motion, I do note that it's not my first speech. It is very important to me that I speak about Tim Fischer, former Deputy Prime Minister, who was member for Farrer—my home region, my electorate—but also a very good friend of my family and of my husband. So I look up and acknowledge Judy, Dominic and Tony. Tim was a giant of The Nationals and he was a true champion for rural and regional Australia. He was also a natural leader who commanded respect right across the political divide, not by walking in front and expecting people to follow but by shepherding and asking people to join him on the path.
He was first and foremost a public servant, and one that I had the great privilege of knowing for more than 30 years, since I was a child. While Tim rose to serve as leader of the Nationals, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, he was first and foremost 'the boy from Boree Creek' and a champion for our shared home of the Riverina Murray. He represented the communities there for 30 years, first in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and then in the House of Representatives. The Riverina Murray is a stunning patchwork with hundreds of individual towns, each with their own communities and each with their own personalities. Tim knew each and every one of them, and they all knew Tim.
Prior to my seeking endorsement as the National Party candidate for the Senate, ahead of this year's federal election, I reached out to Tim for advice. He told me, as I'm sure he might have told many others: 'You have two ears and one mouth. Use them in proportion. Be there to listen, not to talk.' Tim's words of advice were with me during the election. They've been with me since. And I certainly hope I never let him down.
In the lead-up to the federal election, I was privileged to join Tim at the Lockhart opening of his self-titled gallery at the Greens Gunyah Museum. I encourage anyone travelling through the Riverina to call in and stop and get to know this wonderful man a little better. Despite not having been member for Farrer for close to 20 years by then, hundreds of people turned up to join him for the event and to see and talk to him, and he was in his element. He loved people. He loved their stories. And he loved to listen.
Tim was driven by a very strong belief that he had to do the right thing, not just the popular thing. Many people have already mentioned the gun laws and the gun reforms that Tim championed. He championed them very vocally and steadfastly. Along with the then National Party federal president Mrs Helen Dickie, who I also know quite well, he got in the car, drove around to communities—to town hall meetings and to branch meetings of the National Party—and stood in front of screaming mobs of angry constituents to explain why he believed it was the right decision for Australia. He was willing to go out there and face them front-on and explain to them his reasons but also why it was the right thing to do, and I think history has shown us that it was the right thing to do.
But as we reflect on that contribution, which is very right, we can't forget his other political contributions. As Minister for Trade from 1996 to 1999, Tim recognised that the sustainability and long-term success of our primary industries depended on Australia embracing internationalist and free trade policies, which went against the natural protectionism that some of our colleagues feel. At the Nationals conference in 1996, Tim observed that shutting off Australia from the rest of the world behind a protectionist barrier, trade and human, was just plain dumb. In his three years as trade minister he travelled to over 60 countries, which was an incredible achievement, and his habit of laying down his Akubra on the negotiating table as he hammered out deals and treaties is very well documented.
In 2001 Tim retired from parliament, opting not to recontest the division of Farrer at that year's election. He was one of the few politicians that went out on a high and he should be commended for that. But, while he did retire from politics, he didn't slow down at all. I'm actually not sure that he could slow down. Instead he directed his energy into other causes and, alongside Judy, he worked very hard to raise awareness for autism and advocate for the sufferers of autism, a cause very close to their hearts after their son Harrison was diagnosed. He also chaired the Crawford Fund from 2001 to 2006 and later went on to serve as the fund's patron, using this role to promote conservation, biodiversity and agricultural research and further to support the operation of the Global Seed Vault in Norway.
He joined the board of the Australian Agricultural Company, where our paths again crossed in a non-political way. My husband and I were working for the AA Company in Queensland at the time. At a managers' meeting Tim and Judy made a beeline for our familiar faces across the room, which was very welcome. He never forgot us. My husband always remarked how unbelievable it was that Tim did not forget a face or a name. He served as chairman for Tourism Australia, which was a position that he used to champion regional tourism through initiatives such at the caravan safari trail and the Great Outback Cattle Drive. Then he turned his skills to diplomacy, serving as our first resident Ambassador to the Holy See, which has also been mentioned. But his service did not end there; he was a director or a patron of more than 200 not-for-profit and community organisations. Knowing the passion he injected into all of his endeavours, I know that he would have made a positive and long-lasting contribution to each and every one of them.
He found time in his retirement—but I do use that word very loosely—to pursue his other great passion, trains. Much has already been said of his love of trains—so great that it motivated him to write two books on trains. He also then joined my uncle in hosting train tours across the world and here in Australia. He and my uncle would sit there, and Tim would regale people with fun facts and details about the rails they were riding on, the coach they were travelling in and the history of rail in whichever country they were riding through at the time. It's no surprise that all of Tim's tours were sellouts. While those of us in this place may reflect on Tim's service to parliament and his political career, the reality is that his time in elected politics was just one chapter of a truly remarkable career. Over his 73 years he touched many lives. Tim will be missed, but his contribution to the Nationals, to the communities of Farrer and to Australia will be remembered.
That was proven at his recent state funeral. I had the enormous privilege of attending the funeral, held recently in Albury, along with thousands of people who came to pay their respects and to show how much they valued his remarkable contribution both to our community in the Riverina Murray and beyond. It was a very fitting farewell for Tim, and it was beautiful to see the way people came to say thank you in the way they did. As the train carrying Tim made its way from The Rock to Albury, people stood along the track and in the paddocks and on the platforms of the towns along the line, waving their Akubras and their Australian flags to say goodbye to Tim. We've not seen anything like it in the Riverina Murray and I doubt we ever will see it again.
On behalf of the people of New South Wales, and particularly those in the division of Farrer, I offer my condolences to Judy, Dominic, Harrison and the rest of the family. Vale, Tim Fischer, a truly unique Australian, having served his country with passion, courage and humility. May he now rest in peace.
The PRESIDENT: I ask honourable senators to join in a moment of silence to signify assent to the motion.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Darling, Ms Elaine Elizabeth
The PRESIDENT (16:46): Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 30 August 2019 of Elaine Elizabeth Darling, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Lilley, Queensland, from 1980 to 1993.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (16:47): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Birmingham for today and on 12 September 2019 on account of ministerial business.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged as follows:
General business notice of motion No. 72, standing in the name of Senator Kitching for today, postponed to 25 November.
Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Rice for 11 September 2019, postponed to 26 November 2019.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019—from 12 September to 16 October 2019.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Impact of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia—from 17 September to 3 December 2019.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Compliance by former Ministers of State with Ministerial Standards—from 10 September to 26 September 2019.
Community Affairs References Committee
Reference
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:48): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name, I ask that the names of Senators McCarthy and Siewert be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators McCarthy and Siewert, move:
(1) That the Senate acknowledges that:
(a) 9 September, is International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) Awareness Day;
(b) FASD is a life-long but preventable condition caused by in-utero exposure to alcohol;
(c) FASD can cause developmental, physical, mental and behavioural problems, including problems with memory, learning, impulse control, planning ability, understanding consequences, emotional regulation, speech and language; and
(d) people with FASD are likely to have poorer academic and employment outcomes, higher rates of homelessness and incarceration, and increased rates of mental health issues and alcohol and other drug abuse.
(2) That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in June 2020:
Effective approaches to prevention and diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), strategies for optimising life outcomes for people with FASD and supporting carers, and the prevalence and management of FASD, including in vulnerable populations, in the education system, and in the criminal justice system, with particular reference to:
(a) the level of community awareness of risks of alcohol consumption during pregnancy;
(b) the adequacy of the health advice provided to women planning a pregnancy, pregnant women and women who are breastfeeding, about the risks of alcohol consumption;
(c) barriers that may prevent women receiving accurate, timely and culturally/ethnically appropriate information and advice on alcohol and pregnancy;
(d) provision of diagnostic services in Australia including capacity, training, integration and diagnostic models in current use;
(e) the prevalence and nature of co-occurring conditions and of misdiagnosis of FASD;
(f) international best practice in preventing, diagnosing and managing FASD;
(g) awareness of FASD in schools, and the effectiveness of systems to identify and support affected students;
(h) the prevalence of, and approaches to, FASD in vulnerable populations, including children in foster and state care, migrant communities and Indigenous communities;
(i) the recognition of, and approaches to, FASD in the criminal justice system and adequacy of rehabilitation responses;
(j) the social and economic costs of FASD in Australia, including health, education, welfare and criminal justice;
(k) access, availability and adequacy of FASD support available through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, including access to effective and early intervention services for individuals diagnosed with FASD;
(l) support for adults with FASD and for parents and carers of children with FASD;
(m) progress on outstanding recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report, FASD: The Hidden Harm, tabled on 29 November 2012;
(n) the effectiveness of the National FASD Action Plan 2018-2028, including gaps in ensuring a nationally co-ordinated response and adequacy of funding;
(o) the need for improved perinatal data collection and statistical reporting on FASD and maternal drinking; and
(p) any other related matters.
Question agreed to.
Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme
Appointment
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:49): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 87 standing in the name of Senator Dodson, I ask that the name of Senator Siewert be added to the motion. At the request of Senators Dodson and Siewert, I move:
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, be established to inquire into and report on:
(a) the Australian Government policy, program and legal response to the redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, including the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme and ongoing support of survivors; and
(b) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's redress related recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament.
(2) That the committee present its final report on the last sitting day in May 2022.
(3) That the committee consist of 8 members – 4 senators, and 4 members of the House of Representatives, as follows:
(a) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;
(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;
(c) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(d) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(e) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and
(f) 1 senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.
(7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(8) That the committee elect as chair a member or senator nominated by the Opposition.
(9) That the committee elect as deputy chair a member or senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens.
(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(11) That the deputy chair shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(12) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.
(13) That the committee, and any subcommittee, have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(14) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(15) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
(16) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(17) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
(18) That the committee have access to all evidence and documents of the former Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse.
(19) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Fossil Fuel Basins
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:50): On behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on 31 July 2019, offshore petroleum exploration acreage was released, containing 64 areas available for lease:
(i) this is largest number of areas released since 2000, with more than 120,000 square kilometres available, and
(ii) fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to halt the development of any further fossil fuel basins.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:50): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Fossil fuels, including oil, gas and coal, are going to play a vital role in Australia's energy mix for the foreseeable future. The current acreage release provides opportunities to ensure continued energy security for all Australians. Our oil and gas reserves are an important part of our national wealth, too. Gas is now our third-biggest export. Exploration for oil and gas in Australian waters has been undertaken safely for decades. The industry is overseen by an independent expert regulator, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, otherwise known as NOPSEMA.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 89, in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:55]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Energy
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (17:01): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 88 standing in my name for today, relating to clean energy jobs.
Leave granted.
Senator WATERS: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Clean Energy Regulator's The Renewable Energy Target 2018 Administrative Report—The acceleration in renewables investment, highlights the record investment in large scale, commercial and industrial and household renewables over the last year,
(ii) the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that jobs in renewable energy in Queensland grew by 1,550 in 2017-2018, an increase of 44 percent on the previous year,
(iii) the Green Energy Markets 2019 update report, states that 2,012 full time equivalent Queenslanders were employed in the installation and sale of rooftop solar PV in June 2019,
(iv) the recently announced shortlist for the Queensland Government's Renewables 400 tender includes ten renewable energy generation and storage developments projected to collectively deliver 3,000 jobs in central and far north Queensland, including 350 direct jobs created by the Clarke Creek Wind and Solar Farm, west of Rockhampton, and
(v) the Adani Carmichael mine, if it proceeds, is expected to create between 800 and 1,500 jobs in the construction phase, with 100 ongoing jobs; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) deliver real jobs that last, by backing the job-creating, climate-fixing clean energy industry, and
(ii) fund industry development, training and other support to ensure that regional workers and communities, including coal workers, have secure long-term futures.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:01): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The coal industry is providing real jobs in communities across rural and regional areas of Queensland and New South Wales. Coal was one of Australia's largest total export earners in 2018, valued at $67 billion. The coal industry employed more than 53,000 Australians in 2017-18, and pays more than $5 billion annually in royalties. Coal is enabling new investment in roads, hospitals and schools, providing jobs and opportunities for current and future generations. We don't believe coalminers need retraining. Instead they should be rewarded and recognised for the hard work they do for our nation.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: In the last 170 years we have seen a phenomenal improvement in living standards right around the world, particularly in the developed world. That has been due to one thing—that is, the relentless decrease in energy prices in real terms. In the last 15 years in Australia we have seen the reversal of that. In Spain and England we have seen that, for every so-called renewable energy job, 2.2 to 3.7 productive jobs have been lost from the real economy due to energy prices. This is ridiculous. This is antihuman. It is against civilisation. I make a challenge that there has never been any empirical evidence proving that human carbon dioxide causes climate variability. I would be very pleased to receive any specific empirical evidence of human carbon dioxide causing that. I would like the paper, the title, the specific page number and the data. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 88, in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:07]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
jobactive
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:11): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) data released by the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business shows that nearly four in five jobactive participants have had their payments suspended at least once in the last 12 months,
(ii) jobactive participants often have their payments suspended for reasons out of their control including administrative errors by employment service providers,
(iii) jobactive participants are living on unemployment payments as low as $277 a week and should not be subject to unfair payment suspensions, and
(iv) poverty is a barrier to employment and suspending income support payments does not help people gain employment,
(b) expresses concern that jobactive participants can face payment suspensions due to administrative errors by employment service providers with no recourse to Centrelink; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Education and Employment References Committee into Jobactive: failing those it is intended to serve, tabled on 14 February 2019, and
(ii) abandon the Targeted Compliance Framework.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:11): I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 92 moved by Senator Siewert.
Leave granted.
Senator PRATT: I move:
Paragraph (c)(ii), after "abandon" add "its punitive approach to".
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:12): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government strongly believes in mutual obligation. The Targeted Compliance Framework, or TCF, is working. It's simpler and easier for jobseekers to understand and take control of their requirements. In the year following its implementation, there was an approximate 90 per cent reduction in financial penalties compared to the old framework. If a jobseeker commits a mutual obligation failure, their payment is suspended until they re-engage with their employment service provider. If the provider assesses they have a valid reason, they will not accrue any demerits.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Pratt to general business notice of motion No. 92 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:17]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (17:22): The question is that general business notice of motion No. 92 standing in the name of Senator Siewert be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:22]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Threatened Species Protection
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:27): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that recommendations handed down by the South Australian Department for Environment and Water, on 31 July 2019, call for 30 species be added to the threatened species list and a further 15 species be upgraded to a more threatened category; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to establish and fully fund a plan for each threatened species.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:27): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Threatened Species Scientific Committee is meeting this week to discuss new listings and recovery plans. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the committee's decisions at this time.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Government Response to Report
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:28): I, and also on behalf of Senator Kitching, Senator McCarthy, Senator Sheldon and Senator Patrick, move:
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the management of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in and around Defence bases (PFAS report), was tabled on 3 December 2018, making nine recommendations; and
(b) the President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports as at 30 June 2019, indicates that a government response to the PFAS report has not been tabled.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, by 12 pm on 10 September 2019, the government's response to the recommendations contained in the PFAS report.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (17:30): Order! 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 Gallagher:
Dear Mr President,
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The lack of any plan by the Morrison Government to address slowing economic growth and stagnant wages.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (17:31): After six years of the Liberals—that is, after three different prime ministers, three different Treasurers and 16 energy policies—the economy here in Australia continues to flounder. The economy has slowed substantially. Australians are struggling, and the Morrison government has no plan to turn things around.
Today marks six years since this Liberal government was elected, and its record card makes for very disappointing reading. Economic growth is at the lowest level since the global financial crisis. There are 1.8 million Australians looking for work or more work. Wages are growing at one-sixth the pace of profits, with this government presiding over the worst wage growth on record. Household debts have surged to record levels, increasing by $650 billion under the Liberals. Economic growth per person is going backwards. Productivity is going backwards. Business investment is down 20 per cent since the Liberals came to office, and now it is at its lowest level since the 1990s recession. Net debt has more than doubled.
This is what happens when a government spends six years pointing the finger, blame-shifting and making excuses instead of getting the policy settings right. While the Liberals are popping champagne corks and congratulating themselves on winning the election, Australians' wages aren't keeping up with the rising costs of child care, electricity and health, and our standard of living is going backwards. You would have thought that, after six years, they would have an economic policy to grow wages and the economy. One thing is certain: Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg are no Costello or Keating.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Polley, would you please refer to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer by their appropriate titles.
Senator POLLEY: This is an out-of-touch, rudderless government that is failing on jobs and on growth of the economy. While Labor has been out in the community talking about tackling inequality and the issues that matter to Australians—in my case, Tasmanians—the Liberals have been busy obsessing over Labor or sharpening their knives. All the Australian people are left with after six years of finger-pointing and blame-shifting is the slowest economic growth since the global financial crisis—stagnant wages, declining productivity and living standards, and record public and household debt. Wage growth stands at 0.6 per cent, the lowest on record, and Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg face the cameras with cheeky grins and say, 'Everything is going to plan.'
Last week the Reserve Bank decided to keep interest rates at a record low of one per cent. We know that the governor has warned this government on numerous occasions that we can't expect taxation and the economy to continue without better policies from this government. This comes off the back of two cuts in June and another cut in July. The Reserve Bank has also downgraded its economic growth and inflation forecasts. The global economy is unsettled, with trade tensions between the US and China continuing to drive down stock markets and exchange rates. Furthermore, interest rates are being lowered in the US, and political instability in Europe is creating particularly fragile circumstances. The Australian dollar has also hit a 10-year low of US66.77c. If you ask economists for their view on the national economic figures, many believe that the interest rates will fall as low as 0.5 per cent in the coming months and that, if the world moves to negative interest rates, Australia will be forced to consider applying this unique monetary policy.
Those opposite fail to take responsibility for their own economic mismanagement. Their economic mismanagement and incompetence has left the Australian economy adrift. Household living standards have declined under the Liberals, with real household median income lower than it was in 2013. When the global economy is shifting fast and the Australian economy is struggling to keep up, wages are growing at only one-sixth of the pace of profits, with this government presiding over the worst wages growth on record. That's really not a record to be proud of. Australians are currently feeling as if, no matter how hard they work, they just can't get ahead, because their wages aren't keeping up with the skyrocketing energy prices and health and food costs. The annual GDP growth is weaker than the RBA had forecast and weaker than what the government expected only a few months ago. This new data shows that, on the Liberals' watch, growth is just 0.5 per cent for the June quarter and has slowed further to 1.4 per cent for the year; GDP per capita has gone backwards over the year for the first time since the GFC; and annual GDP growth is lower than population growth. The national economy has gone from the eighth-fastest-growing economy in the OECD when Labor was in government to the 20th. Wages are growing at only one-sixth of the pace of profits. Productivity—the GDP per hour worked—has gone backwards over the year. Household spending remains weak, with annual growth slowing further to 1.4 per cent. Total private business investment went backwards in the quarter and over the year. As a percentage of nominal GDP, it was around its lowest level since the early 1990s recession.
Right when Australians need and expect a plan from the Morrison government to get the economy going, all they get instead is the good old blame game or the attack on workers or, as we've seen, those on Newstart. There's a thought bubble that keeps re-emerging and floating past the government, and that is, 'We have to keep whacking those who don't have a job,' even though the government are the ones that are responsible for not driving the economy, not allowing the creation of the jobs that need to be created, and people not having the confidence to employ people.
This weak growth and this lack of direction from the government are the inevitable consequences of a government with a political strategy but not an economic plan. The Morrison government repeatedly assured voters that the economy would remain strong under them. In fact, they campaigned heavily on that, because they had no other plan. They didn't talk about anything else that the Australian people would expect from a government going into an election. The Australian people would expect the government to provide their manifesto for where they saw the country going forward but, no, the Liberals didn't do that. They just said: 'Trust us. We're the better economic managers.' Well, quite frankly, from what I've articulated in this speech, they are not economic managers; they're frauds. This Morrison government repeatedly assured voters that the economy would stay strong under its government. This was an ironclad promise at the election. Yet they're failing the test that they set for themselves.
Labor will always fight, every day, for those less fortunate. Labor will always fight for Australian workers. Labor will always fight for Australian families, and we are determined to give them, going forward, an economic agenda to believe in. We will hold this government to account, because this government has failed the Australian people. They have failed their own tests that they set for themselves. They have presided over a national debt that's doubled. We see that the Australian workers who want jobs or want more work aren't able to obtain that job security. A strong leader wouldn't be taking our economy backwards. A strong leader would be taking Australia forward. Australians must have confidence in the economy. At the moment, they do not have that confidence, they do not have confidence in this government and they do not believe that this government can get the job done.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (17:41): I rise to speak against this matter of public importance that's been put forward by the Manager of Opposition Business, because the Australian economy, while it faces some significant international challenges, nevertheless remains strong in its fundamentals. Internationally, trade tensions between the US and China are weighing on the world economy, with both the IMF and the OECD downgrading their global economic forecasts. These increasing trade tensions will see business investment and trade volumes slow, while our greatest ally, the UK, is, because of Brexit, facing its own challenges and is in an uncertain economic position. As a result, when we look at countries like Singapore, Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom, we see that they have experienced recent negative economic growth, if we look at the June quarter. Looking closer to home, we have faced drought, we have faced flood and we have faced bushfires, which are challenging our country even as we speak. They all contribute to a difficult economic environment.
So, while it's unquestionable that what people call 'headwinds' are faced by the Australian economy, it is entirely questionable that the response that has been proposed by the Labor Party is the right one. In the face of what is, in these circumstances, quite strong economic performance, the Labor Party does nothing but talk our economy down. And they would expose the Australian economy, if they had the opportunity, to greater risk through their constant program of higher taxes and higher debt. If the Australian people want any proof that the Labor Party are reckless economic managers, they need look no further than this very motion. And it's really a little bit rich to hear Labor complain about stagnant wages when, as I travel around Queensland, I hear over and over that the reason businesses who so very much want to be able to pay more to their staff right now but haven't been able to do so in a measure bigger than 2.6 per cent is that they are absolutely crippled by the utter failure of state governments—like Labor in my home state of Queensland—to deal with high energy prices. And they are absolutely crippled by the way federal Labor stripped all flexibility from employers and their ability to negotiate terms that work for their business.
This isn't about paying workers less—quite the opposite; it's about paying them more. But we find ways to pay staff more by getting them to work in ways that are higher-value, higher-productivity ways for that unique operation. That requires the kind of flexibility that is anathema to Australian Labor. But, despite the negative attitude of the Labor Party, the Australian economy continues to show incredible resilience and is the envy of the world.
I'll give you an example. The Australian economy has just completed its 28th consecutive year of economic growth, and it has maintained its AAA credit rating. That's a significant achievement, one that is not able to be matched by many worldwide. Add to this that employment growth at 2.6 per cent is more than twice the OECD average—and it's more than three times what this government inherited, something those opposite tend to forget. A record number of Australians are now in work, which is no small achievement, with over 1.4 million new jobs created in the private sector since the Liberal-National coalition came to government. Australia's GDP continues to grow, and it's evidenced by factors such as the increased expenditure that we saw in the June quarter in the vast majority of consumption categories. Moreover, living standards of Australians continue to increase because the net disposable income per capita has risen to be 2.7 per cent higher throughout the year.
It's also quite remarkable how, despite those external and international economic headwinds, the Australian economy has remained resilient and on track for the first economic surplus in over a decade. These economic results are particularly impressive, given the economy has yet to see flow into the figures that we see reported the income consequences or the stimulus effect, shall we say, of the recently passed tax cuts. We also haven't yet seen reflected in the data reported back the full impact of the Reserve Bank of Australia's decision to reduce interest rates. So when we see both of those levers reported, we can expect to see those numbers continue to improve. And yet, despite that strong economic performance even in difficult international circumstances, the Labor Party continue to wrongly assess what the problems are and they continue to talk down the Australian economy and its performance. When they do so, it harms Australians and their prospects, it harms their confidence, it harms the ability of Australian traders to get ahead in the international market and it does their base no service. Furthermore, not only does the motion ignore the reality of the government's good performance but it shows a complete lack of understanding of how we go about generating growth. So let's give those opposite a little reminder.
The government's agenda to ensure a stronger economy and higher wages was set out in this year's budget, and it was endorsed by the Australian people at the election. Given the current domestic economic environment of low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment, this agenda focuses primarily on increasing labour demand by raising productivity. This is the most effective means of driving economic growth, which flows on to higher wages. The more employers that are out there looking for the right person for their business, the higher the rate they're going to pay to get the right person for the job. It's not rocket science, and yet those opposite don't seem to understand.
That's how we pull the important policy levers when it comes to getting wages to grow. On the tax front, the government's long-term structural reforms to personal income taxes are providing relief. They are boosting household incomes and they are incentivising workplace participation. In a sense, reducing the tax rates that regular Australians need to pay is a way the Australian government is giving them a pay rise—by letting them keep more of their own money. And yet, every day of the week, those opposite stood in the way of major long-term structural tax reform that puts more money in the pockets of all Australians. These reductions provide greater reward for effort. They encourage aspiration, something that we know those opposite don't seem to want to understand. As of last week, the ATO has issued more than 5½ million individual tax refunds for this financial year, totalling more than $14 billion. Again, that is going back into the pockets of Australians. The government has reduced taxes for small and medium-sized businesses, while setting up a new $2 billion securitisation fund to increase their access to capital so that they can invest, so that they can become more productive and so that they can make the gains that are needed to see wages grow.
The expansion of the instant asset write-off in this year's budget to an additional 22,000 businesses employing no fewer than 1.7 million people further supports the business investment that is needed to boost productivity—because that's how we deliver a stronger economy, that's how we deliver more jobs for all Australians and that's how we deliver the slow and steady, but real and tangible, long-term sustainable growth in wages that those opposite did not deliver when they were in government and cannot deliver, based on the policies they took to the last election.
We know that everything about this matter of public importance is just more of the political guff we have come to expect from those on the other side: flashy on the outside, empty in substance and, when you look deeper, really nothing more than an emperor with no clothes.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:51): I rise to join this debate on the lack of any plan by the Morrison government to address slowing economic growth and stagnant wages.
Last week's national accounts figures were damning. They confirmed what most of us already knew and what the government quite clearly is still in denial about, and that is that our economy is in trouble: the slowest growth rates since the GFC, 1.4 per cent year on year; real wage growth stagnating since 2013, averaging half a per cent per annum for the last five years; underemployment stuck at record high levels, above eight per cent—in fact, I think it's 8.4 per cent; and unemployment growing. And the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, whose job it is to manage the health of the Australian economy, is now screaming out for help. What more does Mr Morrison need to know to go, 'We're in trouble, folks. Action is needed'? Despite multiple cuts to the cash rate by the RBA, the economy isn't changing course.
What we need is fiscal stimulus, a government plan to resuscitate the economy. But where is that plan? What does the government intend to do? Drug testing people on income support is not a plan. Cracking down on the union movement isn't a plan. Axing another $1.5 billion in funding from the Australian Public Service as a last-minute election commitment is not a plan. These are nothing more than the same old discredited trickle-down tropes. What we need is bold ideas about how to genuinely lift aggregate demand.
We should be increasing Newstart and youth allowance immediately, by at least $75 a week. We know that people on income support put their money straight back into local economies, and that would stimulate the economy better than tax cuts for the already well-off. If you look at the Deloitte Access Economics report Analysis of the impact of raising benefit rates, it found the following impacts of raising Newstart by $75 a week. It would cost around $3.3 billion a year. However, it would boost the Australian economy by over $4 billion as a result of extra spending—and, oh, by the way, drag up, out of poverty, all those people struggling on Newstart. And I know that they will spend every cent they get because they need it to address key things that they don't spend money on because their income is so low. We know that it will boost spending because people living below the poverty line will spend the extra money on those essential goods and services, and they will spend it in local communities. Deloitte found the extra spending would create some 12,000 jobs—at the same time, helping people struggling in poverty. They also found, as the report says:
Total real wages being paid to Australians would therefore lift by around 0.2% … Similarly, the stronger economy would boost corporate profits, with that latter boost also running at close to 0.2%.
Finally, the stronger economy (more jobs, higher wages, stronger profits) would mean that the Federal Government would raise about an extra $1.0 billion in taxes, while State and Territory Government revenues would increase by some $0.25 billion.
Seems to me a pretty good investment—not only are you helping people in the community, you're also boosting our economy. Our community is expecting nothing less than a commitment by government to people and to those on Newstart. We've got the Reserve Bank governor, John Howard, the Business Council, NGOs—you name it; the list is growing—and they are all calling for a $75 increase to Newstart.
We need to have a real plan for wage growth. We should be reversing the cuts to penalty rates that went through in July, lifting the minimum wage to 60 per cent of the median full-time wage, and removing public sector wage caps. We should be creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs by investing in clean, green, climate-fighting infrastructure, like public transport projects such as Melbourne Metro 2 in Melbourne and the Thirroul rail tunnel between Wollongong and Sydney, dramatically cutting both pollution and travel times. We should be investing in a 100 per cent renewable energy grid, with dramatic upgrades to electricity generation, transmission and storage infrastructure. We should be building a 21st-century fast-charging network to support the transition to electric vehicles, and 500,000 new energy-efficient public homes to alleviate the housing crisis. Again, we should be helping people, achieving a boost to the economy but also helping people that need it. We should create a national nature fund, reversing cuts to Landcare and seeing over $2 billion invested in our regions each and every year, to bring an end to the extinction crisis and employ tens of thousands of workers in environmental restoration.
This is what sensible fiscal policy looks like. This is a plan. It's a plan for what an economy could look like, a clean, green economy that supports the people in that economy—in other words, putting people and the environment first—and an economy actually doing what it should be doing, which is supporting people and the planet. We need bold ideas in line with what the experts are saying. Right now it's the Greens who have a plan to address these issues. We are putting forward ideas for genuine plans for jobs, a genuine plan for wage growth, and a genuine plan to build a zero-emission economy. This is what we need to be doing to protect our community, our planet and our economy. We need a strong economy so that we can make sure that people in our community are looked after and our planet is looked after.
But this government's plan—I suppose you could say it's a plan—is a plan to demonise those on income support. It's a plan to distract people by raising this fear, yet again, of drug testing, penalising people who have an addiction, which is an issue that should be treated as a health issue. This government want to roll out the cashless debit card across the country. That's a plan; it's a plan to demonise people. It's a plan to limit people's cash to make it harder for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. As the Consumer Action Network has pointed out, the cashless debit card makes it harder for people. If they haven't got cash, it is harder for them to keep up. The government have no plan for our community or for a safe, strong, caring community that looks after its most vulnerable. They need to throw out the drug-testing plan. They need to raise Newstart instantly by injecting $4 billion. (Time expired)
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (17:59): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, and it is an important and urgent matter—that is, the lack of any plan by the Morrison government to address slowing economic growth and stagnant wages. Last week this government watched as the clock ticked over six years of their inaction on this economy. After six years of the Liberal-National government the economy has slowed, wages are stagnating and Australians are struggling with the cost of living. Under this government, Australians are working harder and going backwards.
I know that this government would prefer to speak about anything else except its economic record. It would prefer to talk about Labor, but the facts are very clear: wages are growing at just one sixth of the pace of profits—the worst wages growth on record—economic growth is at the lowest level since the global financial crisis, productivity is going backwards, net debt has more than doubled and 1.8 million Australians are looking for work or are underemployed. This mismanagement of the economy has led to a decline in living standards and record household debt, increasing by $650 billion. Last week the Reserve Bank Governor, Dr Philip Lowe, finally weighed in, calling for a three per cent wage rise for public sector workers. Dr Lowe said that wage caps of two to 2.5 per cent were helping to depress wages by setting the standard in the private sector. The RBA wants wages to go up, but this government has no plan to make that happen.
What this government do have a plan to do is cut penalty rates. They've already done that. They've already cut penalty rates for hospitality workers, and who knows who is next? They do have a plan to attack workers and unions who use their limited rights that they have to bargain for better wages. Last week I stood on a picket line with workers in Brisbane doing just that—bargaining for better wages. I have to say, it was the best picket line I've been to in a long time, because there was an abundance of Italian food at this picket line, and it was a fantastic way to find out what was really going on at the company and how the workers had been treated. They haven't seen a dramatic change in six years; all they've seen is their working conditions going backwards.
Workers at O-I glass, a highly profitable US owned glass manufacturer, know that you don't get a pay rise just by asking your boss nicely. They are currently taking protected industrial action because their employer won't lift their wages. Instead, their employer has threatened to tear up their agreement and put workers back on award wages. That's under this government; that's what employers are threatening to do. These workers just want a fair go. You know that saying that we've all heard, 'If you have a go, you get a go,'—that sort of thing? Well, seven weeks on, they are still waiting. How much longer will they have to wait under this government? The government has no plan to help these workers or to help them bargain fairly. They have—or, should I say, Senator Stoker certainly has—a plan to make it easier to sack workers if they're not the right fit for a company. Do you know what would make a person a bad fit for a company? Someone who asks for fairer wages, union members who stand on picket lines, union members who wear stickers on their hats or fly a flag on a construction site.
This raises a very important issue about this government and this Prime Minister. Since the election, the Prime Minister has set his agenda based on what he considers a test for Labor. It is very telling what the government is prepared to test Labor on, but it's what they won't test Labor on that paints a clearer picture. Why isn't this government prepared to test Labor on the true state of this economy? Because it's worse than it was since during the GFC. Why isn't the government prepared to test Labor on low wages? Because it is wages that the RBA says need to go up. Why isn't the government prepared to test Labor on infrastructure spending? They promised money during the election, but it won't be spent in regional Queensland for another four years. We're going to be waiting for those roads to be built for another four years, with no jobs and no wages lifting. They don't want to test us on that, because they can't keep their promises.
The government talk a big game about the economy, and they want to lecture people like me, who grew up in a single-parent household, about the politics of envy to distract from their own mismanagement. They want to talk about aspiration, because that's all you need to get your wages growing—just an aspirational attitude and some good feelings! No-one is envying the government at this moment in time, because they have no plan to turn this ship around. No-one would aspire to be this government at this moment in time. Instead, the Prime Minister is playing games with the Australian people and the parliament.
The true test for a prime minister isn't how effectively he wedges the opposition. The true test for a prime minister isn't how well he divides our country. Prime ministers are remembered for what they build, how they run the economy and what they do to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people in our society. Prime Minister Tony Abbott was tested, and he failed. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was tested, and he failed as well. Six years after the election of the coalition, it is clear that this Prime Minister and those opposite are not up to the test of managing the economy.
The Morrison government want to blame everybody else. They want to use terms like 'international factors', 'international circumstances', 'difficult economic environment' and 'state government issues'. But Labor isn't here to talk down the economy. The facts are facts. The Liberals want to talk about anything except their poor economic record, but let's forget about figures and percentages for a minute. If you spend some time in a factory, on a picket line or at an aged-care facility, you would know how this economy makes people feel. Wages that pay the bills aren't a big ask. Wages that keep up with profits aren't a lot to ask for. But when you don't have them you feel it—trust me. We don't need lectures from those opposite to tell us people are struggling. Under this government, there's no plan to make that struggling stop.
Finally, can I say this: today in question time, senators from this side of the chamber asked some straightforward questions about this government's plan to help the economy and lift wages, but those opposite couldn't answer a single question without attacking Labor. If that is this government's economic policy—to attack Labor and to dodge the hard questions—then the state of our economy will get worse and worse. Australian families deserve better than this government. Regional Queenslanders certainly deserve better than this government. Regional Queenslanders deserve the roads that they were promised at the last election. Workers deserve better wages. The workers standing on that picket line in Brisbane deserve to have their wages case listened to. They deserve to have wages that are fair and that reflect the work that they are doing and what they give back to that company. What they don't deserve is to have to stand on the side of the road to demand them. It's time for this government to take action, to get moving and to start driving our economy.
Finally, with the very last minute that I have, I just want to make a comment on something that is very dear to my heart. I hope you don't mind indulging me. The Cairns State High School girls soccer team is playing in the national final tomorrow, and I want to say to them that they've achieved an amazing thing by making the national final. They've travelled all the way down from Cairns, and I wish them the absolute best. I know that they will do Cairns proud. So thank you very much.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ): Thank you very much, Senator Green, and good luck to the team.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (18:09): I rise to address this matter of public importance, and I think this demonstrates the calcification of the Labor Party beyond all doubt. We've just seen a federal election where the Labor Party's policies were written and authorised by the Labor Party but, of course, were actually drafted by their mates in the unions or the financial sector. I think the Labor Party giving up on an open, competitive economy, their inability to support measures to make our economy more competitive so that more jobs can be created, their inability to support tax cuts, trade deals—whatever—really is depressing. When you think about the record of the Labor Party in the 1980s, where they cut taxes, cut tariffs and opened Australia to the world, what a depressing situation you have today. We have the well-known record of the last Labor government, which left an out-of-control fiscal position for the nation. The Labor Party promised the world but failed to deliver. Their promises, be they health related, education related or disability related, were all unfunded. I'm not saying they weren't good ideas, but the Labor Party left a totally unsustainable budget position for our country.
We are due to deliver the first surplus in over a decade, finally. That will be a $55 billion turnaround from a fiscal year comparison with when we came to office in 2013. The last Labor budget left a $20 billion deficit. So we inherited a deteriorating budget position, which we have stabilised to the point where we can now return to budget balance. The underlying fundamentals of the economy maintain their resilience. I would say, looking at the employment statistics in terms of the gender pay gap and employment growth, that all of those figures are heading in the right direction. Perhaps the most striking statistic of recent times that I can recall is one that was outlined by Senator Cormann at the Sydney Institute just a few weeks ago: if the proportion of people on welfare had remained at the same level it was under Labor in 2013, there would be an additional 350,000 Australians on welfare. That's 350,000 people, in addition to what we have today, that would be on welfare if Labor had remained in office. We have turned that around, and we have turned around the stagnating labour market.
Infrastructure has been a hallmark of our term in office. There is a record investment of over $100 billion over the decade. In my home state, the great state of New South Wales, the government is investing $5.3 billion to deliver the Nancy-Bird Walton international airport in Western Sydney. This recent budget also includes financing the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace in New South Wales. And, as I mentioned in my opening comments, we should never forget that Labor failed to deliver any material trade deals during their time in office. Even though they inherited well-advanced trade agreement discussions with Japan and China, they couldn't deliver a trade deal, because their bosses at the unions said they weren't allowed to do trade deals. How depressing!
One of the other reasons that the Labor Party's budget was never credible is that it was built on quicksand. You may recall Wayne Swan, who is now the national president of the Labor Party, presiding over—frankly—a budget crisis, where he said that he was going to deliver four surpluses and failed to deliver any of them. Part of that was because he had decided that he would progress a mining tax, which in 2013-14 was supposed to deliver $2 billion but raised just $126 million in the first six months of that fiscal year. You'd have to say that was a bit of a failure, wouldn't you.
It's not just about tax policy. It's also about being disciplined. Apart from the very strong statistic about welfare—and I do think this is a very important one—we have ground spending growth down to 1.9 per cent, which is the lowest in 50 years. That is an integral part of repairing a busted budget. Of course, 1.9 per cent is vastly lower than the 3.5 per cent we inherited in 2013. So you'd have to say that, in the time we've had in office, we've turned around an unsustainable budget position, which was built on quicksand taxes and totally unreliable projections by the former Treasurer and now national president of the Labor Party, who famously promised four surpluses and delivered four deficits. We won't make the same mistake.
I want to turn to the more recent history—because it's not all about 2013; it's also about 2019. The Labor Party took to the last election almost $400 billion in new taxes to clobber the economy. There were more taxes than you could poke a stick at: the retiree tax, housing tax, trust tax, carbon taxes et cetera. The retiree tax would probably have to be the most unfair tax. I spent many years working in the financial services industry, and many people would come forward and say: 'I've found a way to fix the budget. Here's this great idea where we take all this money from people on a retrospective basis.' The retiree tax would have hit 900,000 Australians—300,000 in New South Wales. It would have pulled the rug out from underneath people who had made their financial arrangements in good faith, thinking that future governments wouldn't come and pull the rug out from underneath them, let alone the Labor Party.
Primarily, many of the people who would have been hit—or could still be hit by the retiree tax, given that Chief Comptroller Swan has said that they should keep the retiree tax; and of course don't keep it a secret—are earning or have a taxable income of less than $37,000. So we are not talking about the cigar-chompers from Collins Street here; we are talking about mums and dads who have been prudent and have invested in Australian shares. Obviously, over the course of history, there have been demutualisations and privatisations, where people have been encouraged to invest in Australian companies. The former Treasurer famously said not only that people should not vote for the Labor Party if they don't like the retiree tax but also that people were 'overinvested in Australian shares'. It's probably quite dangerous territory for people who hold elected office to give unlicensed financial advice—and it is certainly not something that I propose to do.
The retiree tax is still a key part of the Labor Party's policies, despite it being terribly unfair and retrospective. But of course there's also the housing tax. This has to be the stupidest of all the taxes Labor has come up with. Basically, the premise is that if we put more taxes on housing that will create more houses—amazing! This is from the Labor Party, who championed deregulating the economy and opening our country to the world—to their eternal credit and the eternal credit of Bob Hawke—and now they're saying that more tax equals more houses. It's just crazy. Independent analysts have looked at the housing tax concept. I guess that is what you could call it, though it's probably more accurately described as a fiasco. In Sydney, SQM Research said that property prices would have fallen but also, because there would be fewer houses, rents would have risen by 10 per cent in Sydney alone by 2021 if Labor had won the election and the housing tax had been enacted. So it is a complete boondoggle. It really is quite embarrassing.
Those two taxes alone make up a large part of the $400 billion hit to the economy that the Labor Party would like to foist upon the Australian people. We are very happy to have an economic debate any time that Labor want to have one. Unfortunately, they are unable to draft their own policies and they are relying upon people at the ACTU and in the financial sector to draft their policies, which is very sad. There seems to be no sign of a revision coming, given that Chief Comptroller Swan has said that he wants to keep all their tax policies in place. We have been able to repair the budget so that we can guarantee essential services to Australians who rely upon those services, and we've done that without increasing taxes. Labor's policy, unfortunately, is clear: the taxes stay. I'm sure, in time, they will come to their senses and realise that it's totally unsustainable and ill-advised.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (18:19): I won't reflect on that last contribution too much, except to say that it's a strange obsession with Mr Swan that Senator Bragg has. I'm not sure what a chief comptroller is; I'm sure it's not something good. It's probably something that lives large in Senator Bragg's imagination. But really it's symbolic of a lack of a depth of understanding of the problem and a lack of a capacity to engage with one's responsibility as a backbench member of a government that's struggling to find an agenda that we're down to the bottom rung of university debating style attacks, and we should all try and do a bit better than that—as the emerging of Jacob Rees-Mogg of the Australian Senate.
The first step towards solving a problem is recognising that you have one. You have to be honest about it. You have to think about what has caused it. You have to consider what's likely to fix it. You have to think about what you can do and what you can contribute. Don't blame others. Don't blame the Labor Party after six years of government. Have a go at making it better. We're told that, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go'. Perhaps the Prime Minister and Senator Cormann should have a go at having a go. It would be a start.
Economic slowdown denialism is a bit like climate change denialism; the longer you allow it to persist, the higher the cost of inaction and the more likely it is that grave consequences ensue. So, is there a problem? Well, we should have a look at the evidence. On wages, we've got the lowest growth on record. The Wisden records of Australian wages contain no period where wages have grown by such small amounts. Beyond the slow growth in wages, the wage profit share is declining. Company profits are increasing at a much higher rate than wages are increasing. The promise of trickle-down economics has not been manifest for all Australian workers.
In terms of productivity, growth is at very low levels. The last wave of successful productivity reform really was in the Hawke-Keating period. It was based upon cooperation with the trade union movement, Senator Bragg, something that you would find hard to imagine, I know. It was based on cooperation between the institutions that represent workers and employers, and the stakeholders in the Australian economy. It was based on an enterprise bargaining system that worked, and that was based upon a fair process and cooperative principles. Not much, really, has happened since then in terms of productivity in Australian workplaces.
The government, in terms of productivity, only has one plan: enhanced management prerogative, more power for employers. We've got jobs—job creation in the economy—not good jobs, but people working two, three or four jobs to sustain a family. There have been two responses from the government really: firstly, 'It's not real,' and, secondly, 'Look over there.'
Senator Cormann today in question time—there is no possibility that this bloke will admit any problem; there is no index alternative to the recognised ones that he won't cite to quibble with the obvious. Today, it was some marginal shift in the Gini coefficient when he was asked about lower wages. I mean, really—the Gini coefficient? These characters haven't cared about inequality in the Australian economy in their lives. The next approach is to cite global headwinds. For a bloke from Western Australia, he's a guy who loves a yachting analogy more than is healthy, I think. The second approach is to say, 'Look over there,' and try to distract Australian voters with increasingly cruel approaches to people on welfare—drug testing older people on Newstart, drug testing people who really need a fair go. I think that the Australian community can do much better than the approach that has been offered by the government.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:24): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to pass on what I've seen: from TI in the north to Tugun in the south, to Thargomindah in the west, from Cooktown to Coolangatta to Cunnamulla, shops are shutting, businesses are closing. Why is that important? Because rural industry is vital to our state, because there are more people living outside our capital city than inside. Yet Liberal-Labor policies are pursuing a process destroying Australia's productive capacity.
Here is a list of some of the actions from state and federal government. Energy currently has a renewable energy target of about 14 per cent. The Libs want to double it to 28 per cent, and Labor wants to quadruple it to 50 per cent. On climate, there's the same underlying policy, yet neither party has any empirical evidence proving human carbon dioxide is a cause of climate variability. Neither party will tax multinationals. As for economic mismanagement, both parties use budgets and elections to bribe and to mismanage the economy. Then there are the promises both parties have made to fix PFAS, yet they won't even listen to their own communities and they still deny compensation. On agriculture: Liberal-Labor policies have stolen property rights, taken water, raised water prices and raised energy prices, and now they're pushing the destruction of farmers' rights because of the Great Barrier Reef—all based on a lie.
There is a lack of a plan, plus a lack of understanding, a lack of listening and a lack of integrity. This is killing the productive capacity of our country. Queenslanders say that the MO of ScoMo is facade building, and that Labor is his ally. They exchange preferences, and we ask now: when will Labor and the Liberals merge? One Nation is the only alternative for the people.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:26): In the remaining few minutes of this debate I want to make a few points. The first thing I'm going to do is remind those opposite that there was an election in our recent past. An election is a competition of ideas. We each took a set of policy parameters to the people of Australia, and the people of Australia had their say. I find it very interesting that Senator Green was talking about infrastructure spending in Queensland. The situation that the voters in Queensland faced during the election was one where they considered two plans, and they delivered a pretty decisive result. I would encourage Senator Green to perhaps go back and have a look at the numbers that flowed in Queensland to the respective parties.
This is an issue that the government takes extraordinarily seriously. I wish to quote from a media release from the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg. The media release is titled, 'Economic headwinds require strong economic management'. Acknowledging those economic headwinds is very important. The media release quoted, in part, the RBA talking about how growth in international trade has declined and how investment intentions have softened in a number of countries. It talked about the downgrading in the budget of the international economic growth rates. Mr Frydenberg went on to say:
At home, we face our own challenges with the impact of flood and drought, as well as a cooling housing market and its impact on household consumption.
When was this media release? Was it this week? Was it last week? No; it was before the election.
The government has been very up-front with the people of Australia about some of the challenges faced by the economy. We are being very realistic. At the election we took to the people of Australia a plan which set out how we were going to deal with the challenges that faced us, how we would keep our economy strong, how we would keep Australians in jobs and how we would maintain the 28 years of economic growth that all Australians are enjoying.
I think it's very important to remember that there are many people alive and in the workforce today who have only ever known positive economic growth from Australia as a nation. I, unfortunately, am a little bit older than that, so I can remember some of the recessions of the past. I was a teenager when we had 'the recession we had to have'—a devastating recession that devastated small business right across Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia. It is something that I certainly remember with a great deal of trepidation. Those 28 years of economic growth are something that we should always celebrate but never take for granted. That is why this government took to the election an economic policy that would continue those years of economic growth and continue to keep our economy strong and resilient in the face of international economic headwinds.
Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30
PETITIONS
West Papua
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (19:31): by leave—I table a nonconforming petition relating to West Papua. Many thousands of decent Australians have called on the Australian government to support consideration of West Papuan self-determination at the UN. We know what's going on at the moment within West Papua. We have seen people being attacked and brutalised and, indeed, we hear now from human rights monitors that there have been up to 10 deaths. We know that this is part of a slow-rolling genocide in that region. For decades the West Papuan people have endured major human rights abuses. They've been denied their right to self-determination, and of course in the last few weeks things have become absolutely critical. The footage that's emerged from West Papua shows the Indonesian militia racially abusing the people of West Papua. As I said, there have been horrendous attacks. People have been incarcerated, detained or charged with treason simply for flying the Morning Star flag. They've shut down all communications in West Papua, they've attacked student dormitories and we are seeing these tragic deaths.
It is so critical that the Australian government now make a very clear statement in support of the West Papuan community, in particular supporting the resolution that came out of the Pacific Islands Forum ensuring that the UN are given access to West Papua. They deserve a free and fair referendum. The UN should consider the matter urgently. Again, we should stand up for the human rights of our West Papuan neighbours. We saw Australia delay taking action for decades when it came to the human rights abuses going on in East Timor. Let's not repeat the same mistake again. Let's stand up for the right of the West Papuan people to determine their own future. Let's stand up with the many thousands of Australians who have signed this petition.
DOCUMENTS
ParentsNext Program
Consideration
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:33): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to take note of the document pursuant to continuing orders from the Department of Human Services, received on 5 September 2019. I urge people who are keeping a close eye on programs like ParentsNext to have a look at it—to have a look at how much money is being spent on these contracts for ParentsNext providers who also happen to be registered training organisations. You can see where I'm going here, folks. These are providers for a botched program, ParentsNext, where, for example, Mission Australia got $21,289,730.53. Others have had contracts of $18½ million or nearly $14 million. All these service providers are providing services to supposedly assist single parents, the vast majority of whom are single mothers, and supposedly train them to prepare to go back to work.
Some of these mothers have very young children, as young as six months old. These are the people that are being sent to Storytime at the library, to swimming lessons. It's a program that can't decide whether it's an early intervention and prevention program, a pre-employment program or in fact an employment program. Again, just recently, I had a parent ring me up to say that, even though she had some part-time employment, she was still stuck on ParentsNext. So much for this program supposedly enabling single parents to become prepared for work when they are already prepared for work.
I'm particularly concerned about those providers that are also RTOs. Talk about a recipe for making money! They are absolutely creaming it, aren't they, when they also run an RTO. But then go and have a look in this document at Indue; they're the people that are providing the cashless debit card. They have received $38,786,915.20, and guess what—confidentiality? Yes. Then go down to the Centrelink Call Centre Enhancements Initiative—$94,476,872.60. That is nearly $95 million to run the Centrelink call centre. Well, they're not getting much value for money for the $95 million, let me tell you, because there are still people ringing my office, saying, 'It's so hard to get through to Centrelink.' In fact, last week we had an example where somebody was in hospital and their partner was trying to phone Centrelink to say they were unexpectedly having to prolong their stay in hospital, and she kept ringing and ringing and couldn't get through to Centrelink. She had to ring my office, and we got through and we managed to get the issue dealt with. So much for the Centrelink call centre—$95 million. I can tell you how to better spend that sort of money so you can get much better service from Centrelink. Then you've got Serco Citizen Services Pty Ltd getting $36,300,000 for labour hire.
These are extremely expensive contracts that are going to a failed system to prop up private enterprise, instead of employing people properly at Centrelink to provide proper services to the most vulnerable members of our community, who need to get into contact with Centrelink, who need to be able to report their earnings. Have a look at these documents. Millions and millions and millions of dollars are being wasted on flawed services by this government, yet it won't raise Newstart, which will actually not only help people but also pump $4 billion into our economy and enable employment of at least 12,000 people.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senators, just bear with me. With documents, can we work through each page in order—with the indulgence of senators—so all those people following outside in Australia and listening, who would like to know where we're at, can follow the agenda too.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Tourist Refund Scheme
Consideration
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (19:39): I rise to speak on Auditor-General's report No. 8 of 2019-20, entitled Management of the Tourist Refund Scheme. The Tourist Refund Scheme, otherwise known as the TRS, is in place so that travellers leaving Australia can claim a refund of the GST that they have paid on goods purchased in Australia within the previous 60 days.
Australia is one of about 60 countries around the world that have such schemes in place. Offering tourists refunds on goods they purchase here is an incentive for tourists to spend on high-ticket items when they are in Australia. In the 2017-18 financial year, refunds under the TRS included $17.2 million in GST paid on Apple goods, $13.8 million in GST paid on Louis Vuitton products, $10.1 million in GST paid on Gucci goods, $9.1 million in GST paid on Chanel products, $6.2 million in GST paid on Hermes products and $4.3 million in GST paid on Tiffany & Co products.
The TRS has a place for tourists and is important for tourism. But, under this government, this scheme has become a rort. This is because Australia is the only country in the world that allows its citizens and residents to participate in the scheme. An Australian citizen who would ordinarily pay GST on goods—and that GST would go to the state governments to support health, education and infrastructure—can avoid paying this tax if they happen to be travelling overseas. For any goods they buy within 60 days of travel they can then claim the GST back and erode our tax base, even though they will be coming back into the country after their holiday or work trip is over. Since the scheme was created, 41 per cent of all refunds have been paid to Australian citizens and residents, not to actual tourists. That's over $680 million. So, while the Auditor-General's report is titled 'Management of the TRS', it really should be titled 'mismanagement'.
The Australian National Audit Office found there has been between $244.3 million and $556.6 million in GST revenue leakage from the TRS since it commenced. That's half a billion dollars leaked or been paid back to Australians who leave the country with goods, claim a refund on the GST and then come back into the country, ultimately rorting the system. The report goes on to say: 'The money would otherwise have been paid to states and territories.' Is this what Prime Minister Scott Morrison means when he says, 'If you have a go you get a go'? Maybe for his mates at Gore Hill fundraisers it should be, 'If you have a Gore Hill go you get a go'—if you get to rort the system and erode the GST revenue, which is supposed to be going to back to the states and territories to fund schools, public transport, hospitals and infrastructure. Whose side is the Prime Minister on? The side of people who need Tiffany platinum bracelets and Gucci bags who are willing to rort the system, or the rest of us?
Worse still, between 2013 and 2018, under the third-term Liberal government, the Department of Home Affairs stopped issuing penalties for people rorting the scheme. Home affairs minister Peter Dutton has raised a white flag because his department—and I quote the report—'does not consider the TRS to be one to be one of its operational priorities.' Only the Liberals could think that half a billion dollars in leakage isn't a priority. Clear incompetence follows the home affairs minister wherever he goes. There is, for example, the poisonous culture in his department, a blowout of arrivals at our airports claiming asylum, the blowout in bridging visas, a surging number arriving on aeroplanes claiming asylum and the number of people waiting to pledge citizenship in Australia spiralling out of control. Then there is the exploitation of workers in Australia on temporary visas. The Department of Home Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs haven't taken action to provide protection to an increasing number of exploited workers on temporary work visas. They haven't taken that action. Thousands of workers, mainly from China and Malaysia, are essentially trafficked in Australia.
Last year, a Joint Standing Committee on Migration report talked about temporary work visas being used as a loophole by labour hire companies. Dodgy labour hire companies are deciding who comes to this country. This report is another damning indictment of home affairs minister Peter Dutton's incompetence, waste and mismanagement. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Am I right to assume that you seek leave to continue your remarks?
Senator Sheldon: Yes, thank you.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Department of Home Affairs: Paladin Contracts
Consideration
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (19:44): I rise to—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): This is on page five?
Senator McKIM: This is on page five, and it's document No. 3, which relates to contracts with Paladin, which is the company that the Department of Home Affairs has engaged to provide certain services on Manus Island—services worth over half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. I have to say, there are serious questions here around the kind of compliance monitoring that the Department of Home Affairs has carried out, such as it has, in relation to these comments.
For context, it's worth pointing out significant and serious criticisms of the Department of Home Affairs that the Australian National Audit Office has revealed in more than one report over the last few years. But what's really interesting about documents that are now in the public domain is that we have discovered that Home Affairs inspectors have not been to Manus Island for 15 months due to safety concerns. It leads me to pose the starkly obvious question to this Senate, which is: if Manus Island is not safe for Department of Home Affairs officials, how was it ever found to be safe for those desperate and vulnerable people who travelled to Australia by boat to seek asylum here and who were then exiled to Manus Island, in many cases for six long years?
The answer is, of course: it was never safe for those people on Manus Island. In exiling most of them over there in 2013—as I said, over six long years ago—we were not only abrogating our responsibilities under international covenants that we had signed, but we were deliberately and knowingly sending them into danger. We shouldn't be surprised that people have been murdered over there, and the murderers are yet to be held to account; we shouldn't be surprised that people have been attacked over there and assaulted on multiple occasions; and we shouldn't be surprised that there has been and continues to be an epidemic of self-harm amongst that community of innocent people, who have not even committed an offence under Australian law, let alone a crime.
As we found out in the last couple of weeks during inquiries being conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into various pieces of legislation that are currently underway, there are over 50 people—53, in fact, according to the Department of Home Affairs—who've been imprisoned in the Bomana immigration detention facility in Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea, a facility, I might add, that was at least substantially and potentially totally funded by Australian taxpayers. That's 53 people, some of whom had been approved for transfer to Australia under the medevac legislation that was passed by this parliament against the wishes of the government prior to the last election.
The Senate, through the legal and constitutional affairs committee, has heard evidence that some of the legal representatives of these people actually cannot even get in touch with them anymore. I'm hearing very disturbing reports coming out of Papua New Guinea that people who are in the Bomana immigration detention facility have had their phones removed from them, have had their contact with the outside world completely severed and are currently suffering extreme deprivation and humanitarian and human rights abuses. In at least some of those cases, the people concerned were so ill that they were approved for transfer to Australia under the medevac laws because they could not get the medical treatment they required in Papua New Guinea.
These people have been exiled to Papua New Guinea for six years. They'd been locked up on Manus Island for multiple years, until the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court determined that that was illegal. And now they find themselves locked up again in immigration detention in Papua New Guinea, desperately ill, cut off from contact with doctors and cut off from contact with their lawyers. It's a disgrace.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator McKim, your time has expired.
Senator McKIM: Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Consideration
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (19:50): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, Great Barrier Reef outlook report for 2019. This is the five-yearly report that is prepared by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Unfortunately, the reef status has gone from 'poor'—five years ago—to, now, 'very poor' in 2019. This is on the eve of when the World Heritage Committee will once again consider whether or not to list the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage site in danger.
As you might recall, the government got a short reprieve on their homework about five years ago. The World Heritage Committee said they'd come back and reconsider that question at their meeting next year. Well, it's not looking good, folks. Not only do we have 64,000 people that rely on the reef for their livelihood, predominantly as tourism operators, we also have one of the seven natural wonders of the world. In fact, the reef is the largest living organism that can be seen from space, and yet we have a government that is doing absolutely nothing about what is described as the biggest threat to the reef: climate change.
We have had some extremely strong remarks made by the folk at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Usually they're very measured; they're bureaucrats and they don't say these things lightly. So I want to mention that GBRMPA chief scientist, Dr David Wachenfeld, has said, 'What this emphasises for us is the absolutely critical need for the strongest possible mitigation of climate change and reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.' The report talks of the fact that the reef is now less resilient and increasingly less diverse and that reef dependent industries need to prepare for change.
This is after we saw successive extreme coral bleaching episodes first in 2016 and then in 2017. Two-thirds of the reef was affected by those events, and just shy of 50 per cent of the coral cover died. We've got half of an amazing product that we showcase to the world and half of an ecosystem—that we don't have the right to destroy—which is now being consigned to the history books. We have the government's own authority saying that we need urgent critical action on climate change. And what do we have the government doing? The minister basically tried to say, 'People will be saying that the reef's fine. Other people will be saying that it's not fine. We're somewhere in between. She'll be right, mate. Go back to sleep.' Not good enough.
Professor Terry Hughes, one of the world's foremost coral reef scientists, a distinguished professor at JCU, noted:
… the report said "the current rate of global warming will not allow the maintenance of a healthy reef for future generations […] the window of opportunity to improve the reef's long-term future is now".
Even he—who has wept over the state of the reef in teaching his class at JCU after these bleaching events—still says we have time now to change our path, to take rapid climate action, to try to rebuild the reef's resilience, and to try to protect those 64,000 jobs and the absolute teeming biodiversity that the reef has supported. But he says:
A logical national response to the outlook report would be a pledge to curb activity that contributes to global warming and damages the reef. Such action would include a ban on the new extraction of fossil fuels, phasing out coal-fired electricity generation, transitioning to electrified transport, controlling land clearing and reducing local stressors on the reef such as land-based runoff from agriculture.
So here we have yet another reef scientist, with more credentials that any of the people in this room, begging for a transition away from fossil fuels to save what's left of the reef.
This could be a lasting legacy of this government. Are they really going to condemn the reef to the annals of history? Are they going to write the death warrant of the reef? It seems so, because, in the same week the report was released, the latest emissions data was also released. The bad news is that it's been going up since 2013. This government likes to pretend it is doing something about the climate, but the data shows otherwise. You are cooking the reef. Climate change is driving the severity of bushfires which are now wreaking havoc not only on northern New South Wales but also on southern Queensland a week out of winter, and you have some of the most learned folks begging for urgent action. We know we can do this. We could retool our economy with 100 per cent renewables. It would create more jobs, and safeguard the reef and the folks whose jobs rely on the reef remaining healthy. There's no downside to this, except for the coalmining companies who are used to getting their own way with this government and, frankly, with the opposition, because they make massive donations to their election campaigns. The future of the reef is at stake. It's time we listened to the science and stood up to protect it.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (19:55): Just two weeks ago the world's most powerful nations, the G7, met in Biarritz, in France. When the G7 came together it was speculated that the key agenda item was going to be tariff wars between China and the US. Let me tell you what the key agenda item was: it was the burning of the Amazon, the 'lungs of the earth', and land clearing. It didn't escape my attention that our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was invited to the G7 that day as an observer. There he stood in the background with the world's most powerful leaders while the world focused on the burning of the Amazon. It gave me some hope that, while trade deals between Europe and Brazil were being discussed, nations and leaders like President Macron said, 'There will be no trade deal with Brazil.' Germany threatened 'no trade deal with Brazil'. They threatened to pull their funding if Brazil didn't do something about the rapid decline of that natural wonder. Imagine if the world's leaders had also pulled aside our Prime Minister that very day and said, 'By the way, mate, what's going on with the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray-Darling?' I tell you what: we can't be on our high horse when we criticise the right-wing President of Brazil for land clearing and what seems like a blatant disregard for one of the natural wonders of the world when our own Great Barrier Reef, which is arguably just as important for biodiversity, just as important for regulation of the weather, is also suffering a sad and rapid decline.
Within a week of that G7 meeting, as Senator Waters has said today, three reports were released in rapid succession. The first one was our government asking the World Heritage Committee to take climate change out of the equation when it visits Australia and assesses the heritage values of the reef, which we all know are stuffed. Just a day later the reef's own manager and some of the best scientists in the world put out a statement saying that the outlook for the reef has gone from poor to very poor. What did our environment minister have to say in the news that night—I'm sorry it wasn't you, Senator Duniam; I'm sure you'd have liked to have been in front of the cameras for that report. She said, 'Well, the reef is the best managed reef in the world.' While that might be the case, if you don't manage climate change it's for nothing. The Great Barrier Reef has now officially been admitted to the emergency ward, and no amount of cosmetic surgery from your government, Senator Duniam, is going to get the Great Barrier Reef out of the emergency ward.
Senator Duniam interjecting—
Senator WHISH-WILSON: You might laugh, but it's not funny. We are facing the death of this global icon on our watch. I have been and dived on the Great Barrier Reef twice in the last 10 years, and I saw what it was like before three coral bleachings in the last eight years. I took a Senate committee up there to dive on the reef. We met with experts and we heard evidence right across Queensland about the disruption of the reef. This is no secret now. The government's own reef manager is telling us we need to ring this bell as loud as possible if we're going to save a global icon.
Let me conclude tonight on where I get my hope from—I tell you, the amount of times I have stared at my ceiling at night-time thinking about the future of the reef. Let me tell you where I get my hope from, Senator Duniam—through you, Chair. I hope that the world pays attention. It did with the Amazon. Never before have I seen nations put the environment before economic matters at a G7 meeting. And I hope that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee comes to Australia and that it takes on board this evidence and looks very seriously at this government's track record—the third report that was released that week about this government's irresponsible rising emissions, not to mention trying to ship coal at a rapid rate overseas, releasing massive carbon bombs.
Australians have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. We have an international shame when it comes to being custodian of the Great Barrier Reef, an inherent, brutal conflict of interest: we manage the reef, but we export global warming like no other country on this planet. We have very important decisions to make, and I hope that UNESCO rings that bell really loudly and that this government has nowhere to go but to act on climate and do its job, and to be the custodian of the reef for this planet and for the nations around this planet that care about the future of their grandchildren. (Time expired)
BUDGET
Proposed Expenditure
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:01): I table the following documents:
Particulars of proposed and certain expenditure for the 2019-20 financial year.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.
Leave granted.
Senator DUNIAM: I move:
That the documents be referred to legislation committees for the consideration of the estimates.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:02): I table a response to a question taken on notice during the consideration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendments (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019 on 1 August 2019 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Dear Mr President
I refer to the following question asked by Senator Rex Patrick on 1 August 2019, during the Senate debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019:
"Minister—and you may wish to take this on notice—if you can provide the dates on which the department met with the organisations that you suggested, or that you said that they met with, and provide the date upon which the drafting instructions were tendered to the drafters, that would be appreciated."
Pursuant to Senate Standing Order 74, as the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs in the Senate, please find enclosed the response provided by the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Peter Dutton MP.
Yours sincerely
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash
Encl. Minister for Home Affairs response to Question on Notice
Department of Home Affairs
Question:
On 1 August 2019, Senator Rex Patrick asked:
Can you can provide the dates on which the Department met with the organisations that you suggested, or that you said that they met with, and provide the date upon which the drafting instructions were tendered to the drafters?
Answer:
Since 1 July 2018, the Department has met with the following organisations on the following dates:
11 July 2018 - Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
23 August 2018 - Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
30 August 2018 - Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
10 December 2018 - Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
31 January 2019 - Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
28 March 2019 - Interdepartmental meeting with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
20 May 2019 - Office of International Law
30 May 2019 - Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
20 June 2019 - Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
25 June 2019 - Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Federal Police
3 July 2019 - Attorney-General's Department
9 July 2019 - Australian Government Solicitor
18 July 2019 - Office of Parliamentary Counsel
22 July 2019 - Australian Government Solicitor and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
16 August 2019 — Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
19 August 2019 — Australian Federal Police
The Department issued drafting instructions on 22 March 2019 and 9 July 2019.
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:03): 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 DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:03): 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—
NATIONAL SPORTS TRIBUNAL BILL 2019
Sport plays a significant role in the Australian way of life – each year 14 million Australians participate in some form of sporting activity.
Sport is also an important contributor to the Australian economy. As highlighted by the Boston Consulting Group's 2017 Intergenerational Review of Australian Sport, $35-47 billion of economic activity is generated by sport each year, equating to approximately 2-3 per cent of GDP which is equivalent to the agriculture sector. Recognising the importance of sport to the Australian community, the Australian Government invests more than $300 million to support high performance sport and encourage greater participation.
Australians have no tolerance for the corruption and manipulation of sport. In August 2017, the Government commissioned the Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements (the Wood Review), chaired by the Hon James Wood AO QC, as part of the work being done to develop the National Sport Plan – Sport 2030.
The Wood Review was published on 1 August 2018. It confirms Australia's position as a leader in addressing sports integrity threats, but cautions that Australia's sports integrity response will require ongoing vigilance to ensure Australian sport can be protected.
Indeed, the Wood Review found that sports are challenged by a range of mounting integrity threats, including the increasing sophistication and incidence of doping, the globalisation of sports wagering particularly through rapidly growing illegal online gambling markets, the infiltration and exploitation of the sports sector by organised crime, corruption in sports administration and growing participant protection issues.
Sports integrity matters are now beyond the control of any single stakeholder.
The nature of sports corruption and manipulation is evolving at the fastest rate ever observed due to the immense commercialisation of sport and sporting organisations and accelerating technological advancement.
These threats are complex, globalised and connected, forming a complicated threat matrix. To respond effectively, Australia must have a robust, comprehensive and nationally‑coordinated response across sports, governments, regulators, the wagering industry, law enforcement and other stakeholders.
A key recommendation of the Wood Review is that a National Sports Tribunal be established to address anti-doping and general sports disputes fairly, quickly and cost-effectively, to ensure accessible natural justice for all parties.
The Wood Review examined similar models overseas, including in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Japan, and found that Australia's sports dispute resolution mechanisms lagged behind. The Wood Review underlined the need for such an entity in Australia.
This is why we introduced legislation into the previous Parliament, to fund a two-year pilot of the National Sports Tribunal, which would allow refinement of its jurisdiction and operation according to demand. Although that Bill lapsed due to the recent federal election, we have taken that opportunity to undertake further consultation on, and refinement of, the Bill being introduced today.
By establishing the National Sports Tribunal, we will ensure that the Australian sporting community has access to a dispute resolution mechanism providing:
cost-effective processes for sports and participants;
timely, reliable and efficient procedures;
transparency; and
preservation of actual and perceived independence.
Currently in Australia, some sports disputes are arbitrated in the first instance by tribunals run internally by individual sports.
However, most sports cannot maintain internal tribunals. Their only available forum for anti-doping rule violation disputes is the Swiss Court of Arbitration for Sport, which can be an expensive and time consuming process.
We have heard from a number of sports about the challenges they face in dealing with disputes. Managing such disputes detracts from the core business of our sports –building a more active Australia and achieving sporting excellence. Integrity compromises detract from these goals and cause major reputational and other damage, especially when they occur during major sporting events.
Establishing the National Sports Tribunal will provide an effective mechanism to manage such issues.
It is proposed the National Sports Tribunal will deal with two types of disputes – anti-doping rule violations and general disputes.
Accordingly, the National Sports Tribunal will be comprised of three Divisions:
an Anti-Doping Division;
a General Division; and
an Appeals Division.
The Anti-Doping Division will hear anti-doping rule violation disputes.
The General Division will hear other types of disputes which arise under the rules or policies of a sport, including in relation to code of conduct breaches and disciplinary matters, selection disputes, member protection issues and the like.
The Appeals Division will deal with appeals from the Anti-Doping Division and General Division, and appeals from internal sport-run tribunals in relation to anti-doping rule violation disputes and general disputes.
The National Sports Tribunal will be established by statute, rather than privately, to enable the Tribunal to be given powers to inform itself, including by requiring the attendance of witnesses and the provision of documents.
The National Sports Tribunal will be one of the few, if not the only, sports dispute resolution body worldwide that will have these powers, reaffirming the Government's commitment to, and Australia's position as a leader in, protecting the integrity of sport.
Further, with the agreement of both parties to a dispute, the National Sports Tribunal will be empowered to provide dispute resolution services in addition to arbitration, including conciliation, mediation and case assessment.
This Government is intent on providing participants in sport with a fair, efficient and cost-effective forum of the resolution of sports disputes. We are also focused on relieving the burden of managing complex and serious dispute resolution from sporting organisations, so they can focus their time and resources on doing what they do best - supporting our high performance athletes to excel and providing more opportunities for Australians to get active.
NATIONAL SPORTS TRIBUNAL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2019
I am pleased to introduce this supporting Bill, the National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019.
This Bill is a companion Bill to the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019, and will deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019, as well as for related purposes. Both of these Bills were introduced into the previous Parliament, though lapsed due to the recent federal election. This has allowed for the opportunity to undertake further consultation on, and refinement of, the Bill being introduced today.
In addition, this Bill provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of existing sports dispute resolution processes to the National Sports Tribunal.
The scope of this Bill allows a degree of flexibility to make adjustments to the new arrangements or prescribe other matters of a transitional nature in the rules to be made under the Act.
This Bill will make consequential amendments to:
The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 to allow for the use of the National Sports Tribunal in resolving anti-doping disputes; and
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the insertion of the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019 into the secrecy provisions.
This proposed amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 is necessary to ensure that parties to a dispute before the National Sports Tribunal have the appropriate guarantees around the protection of their private information, including sensitive medical and health information. Without this assurance individuals may be reluctant to utilise the National Sports Tribunal due to concerns about privacy and reputation. Similarly, parties may be reluctant to fully participate in proceedings and/or provide required information. Other information, including information about the administrative workings of the National Sports Tribunal, may still be subject to production under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
These amendments will take effect in parallel with the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019, prior to the intended establishment of the National Sports Tribunal in March 2020.
Debate adjourned.
Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:04): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) to safeguard Australian farmers and primary production businesses from those who incite trespass or other property offences on agricultural land.
Recently, we have seen a number of incidents of trespass on agricultural properties and businesses.
Farmers are a vital part of the Australian community. They deserve to go about their business free from harassment and threats of harm.
This reprehensible conduct was enabled and encouraged by the sharing of information online, including personal details of farmers' names, addresses and workplaces.
The Government is committed to protecting farmers from the actions of those who disseminate such information with the intention to encourage others to unlawfully trespass, or unlawfully damage property, on agricultural land.
This Bill builds on action that Government has already taken to protect farmers. Earlier this year, the Government prescribed the 'Aussie Farms' website as an organisation under the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act), after it published information about Australian farmers including their names and addresses. This decisive action will expose Aussie Farms to potential penalties of up to $2.1 million if it is found to breach the Privacy Act.
The Bill introduces new offences for individuals who use a carriage service, such as the internet, to incite another person to trespass, damage, destroy or steal property on agricultural land.
Incitement of trespass on agricultural land
Trespass onto private property is already criminalised by state and territory legislation, but new laws are needed to strengthen protections for farmers.
Trespass onto agricultural land has the potential to cause food contamination and breach biosecurity protocols. It can also lead to farmers and their families feeling unsafe on their own land.
The Bill will address this by creating a new offence for using a carriage service to transmit, make available, publish or otherwise distribute material with the intention to incite another person to trespass on agricultural land.
This offence would require that a person is reckless as to whether the other persons' trespass or related conduct could cause detriment to a primary production business being carried out on the land.
For the purposes of the new offences, 'agricultural land' means land in Australia that is used for a primary production business. For the purposes of this definition, it is immaterial whether the land is also used for residential purposes or for a business that is not a primary production business.
The law would cover dairy and meat farmers, but also other agricultural premises such as abattoirs, meat exporters, fish farms, livestock sale yards, and tree, fruit, vegetable and crop growers.
This offence would apply whether or not actual trespass or detriment results from the incitement. The intention of a person to incite trespass will be based on all the circumstances of a case. For instance, the inclusion of a disclaimer on a website would not, of itself, be conclusive.
A person who is found guilty of this offence could face up to 12 months imprisonment.
This will send a strong message that actions that threaten the safety of our farmers and food system are not acceptable.
Incitement of damage, destruction or theft of property on agricultural land
The Bill will also create an aggravated offence for those who use a carriage service to incite more serious forms of harm – property damage and destruction, or theft from agricultural land.
This offence, and the substantial penalty proposed, reflects the gravity of these more serious forms of conduct and the substantial loss of income that could follow.
This offence will carry a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
For example, if a person posts on social media intending that other people pull down fences on a farm, or steal livestock from a farm, that person would be subject to the aggravated offence and its higher penalty.
Protections for whistleblowers and journalists
It is critical that journalists and those who lawfully disclose animal cruelty, or other criminal activity where it exists in the agricultural industry, are protected under the Bill.
For this reason, the Bill contains appropriate exemptions for journalists and whistleblowers.
For journalists, the offences would not apply to material relating to a news or current affairs report, where made by a journalist in the public interest and in their professional capacity. For example, the Bill would provide an exemption for a journalist acting in their professional capacity who publishes a story that listed the locations of farms with 'questionable' farming practices, simply because activists use that information for future trespasses.
The exemption would not protect a journalist suggesting that activists should use the information to facilitate farm trespass.
For whistleblowers, the exemption would apply in any circumstance where a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory provides that they would not be subject to any civil or criminal liability for the conduct.
Conclusion
The events of recent months demonstrate the need for greater deterrence for those from the existing legislative framework is not adequately able to deter people from entering agricultural land illegally. Australian farmers have experienced criminal trespass, intimidation and disruption to their businesses and livelihoods.
This Bill sends a strong message to anyone who intends to incite trespass on agricultural land or cause damage to property.
The Morrison Government is committed to keep Australian farmers and their families safe.
And this Bill will introduce serious criminal penalties to ensure that is the case for our farmers and their families are protected.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:05): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Government is committed to combating the illicit tobacco black market. In particular, a range of complementary measures were introduced in the Black Economy Package—combatting illicit tobacco as part of the 2018-19 Budget.
The Black Economy Package seeks to disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny criminal groups access to illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities. As part of this package, it is proposed that from 1 July 2019 tobacco products will be a prohibited import and will only be allowed to enter Australia with a valid import permit, with limited exceptions. Any tobacco that is detected at the border without a valid permit will be seized.
The Customs Act 1901 currently requires seized prohibited imports to be stored for a minimum of 30 days before destruction. This storage requirement, together with legislative and administrative requirements for prohibited imports, will impact upon border operations and limit the ability of the Government to regulate and manage illicit tobacco effectively.
This Bill will amend the Customs Act to empower the Comptroller-General of Customs to deal with seized tobacco products in a manner he or she considers appropriate, including immediate destruction of the goods. Similar controls already exist for other prohibited imports, including seized psychoactive substances and prohibited serious drug alternatives.
These amendments will improve the handling of seized illicit tobacco, resulting in effective regulation of tobacco permit conditions and enabling greater focus on targeting of illicit tobacco. This Bill will improve financial outcomes for the Government and enhance implementation of the new tobacco measures.
Debate adjourned.
Road Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Electoral Matters Committee
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Ms Payne to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and Ms Sharkie to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
BILLS
Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2019
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2019
Treasury Laws Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2019
Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2019
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019
Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2019
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Reference
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:07): I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by the final sitting day of June 2020:
Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China, with particular reference to:
(a) the management of a mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral relationship between Australia and China;
(b) Australian and Chinese perspectives on, and interests in, regional and global security issues;
(c) trade, investment and infrastructure issues, including Australia's engagement with China's Belt and Road Initiative;
(d) educational and research cooperation;
(e) tourism, cultural exchanges and people-to-people ties;
(f) management of diplomatic and consular arrangements;
(g) dialogue on human rights issues;
(h) the roles of Australian institutions in Australia's relations with China, including: state and local governments, universities and other academic bodies, business, and non-government organisations; and
(i) any related matters.
There is no bigger issue in Australian foreign policy, defence policy and trade policy than that of our relationship with China. As we look towards the decade ahead, Australia will be in a radically different international environment from anything we have faced since the beginning of European settlement of this continent. The key to that change is the rise of China. From January 1788, when the First Fleet sailed into Botany Bay, for well over two centuries Australia has had first Great Britain and then the United States as our strategic protector and key trading partner. We were always able to say, to use the words of Sir Robert Menzies, that we had a great and powerful friend, and that friend, be it the UK or the US, was English-speaking and democratic, shared common values and perspectives, was a key trading partner and possessed the naval power to ensure the security of Australian shores. Those days are now beginning to fade, and China, a great Asian power, looms very large in our future. China has become Australia's vital trading partner—our largest two-way trading partner in goods and services, valued at $155.2 billion in 2016; our largest export market, at $93 billion in 2016; and our largest source of imports, at $62.1 billion in 2016.
At the same time, China is transforming Australia's strategic landscape as Beijing develops the military and naval capabilities to challenge the position of the United States and its allies in the Western Pacific and project power much further afield. What China's ultimate ambitions and intentions are, of course, is a matter for lively debate. What is clear, however, is that Australia faces an emerging international environment radically different from what we have experienced through much of our nation's history.
Evidence of this transformation—strategic, economic and political—is before us every day. Decades ago, China would be mentioned only briefly in the world news pages of our newspapers, usually with a reference to internal conflict, poverty or the challenges of economic development. Now China is in the headlines every day. China is, rightly, big news, whether in relation to the United States-China trade dispute, strategic tensions in the South China Sea, China's belt-and-road strategy, China's influence in the South Pacific region, the turmoil on Hong Kong's streets, allegations of human rights violations in Xinjiang or developments in the case of the detained Australian citizen Dr Yang Hengjun, who now faces espionage charges brought by China's ministry of state security.
There's also a steady stream of controversies concerning China's growing influence in Australia, including, for example, China's interest in Australian resources and critical infrastructure, the revelation that a Chinese owned mining company has been allowed to set up in Australia's top secret Woomera Defence test range, concerns about political influence on Australian university campuses and the most recent revelations of Chinese money politics in the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Nor is there any shortage of commentary on Australia's relations with China from strategic and economic experts, including the recent observations of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Mr Andrew Hastie, from the other place, on China's global ambitions and the warning of the outgoing director-general of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, who, whilst avoiding naming China explicitly, declared covert interference to be an 'existential threat' to Australia.
In these circumstances, it is both proper and timely for the parliament to conduct a wideranging inquiry into Australia's relations with China to see how we can continue to maximise benefit from a mutually beneficial trading relationship but equally to understand where caution is required. There is, of course, nothing unusual in the Senate's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee conducting inquiries into Australia's relations with various countries. The committee has done this before, without controversy, for example in relation to China in 2005 and 2006, Papua New Guinea in 2010, the Indian Ocean region in 2013 and Mexico in 2015. Other parliamentary committees have also reviewed many aspects of Australia's relationship with China. Indeed, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties today held a public hearing as part of a current inquiry on the free trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong China.
A Senate inquiry into relations with China would seek input from the Australian government and its departments and agencies, the embassy of the People's Republic of China, other governments, non-government organisations, universities and other educational institutions, business academics, trade experts and a wide range of other interested stakeholders. I first proposed a Senate committee inquiry into Australia's engagement with China's Belt and Road Initiative in November last year. At the time, the Victorian Labor government had made a decision to sign a memorandum of understanding on China's Belt and Road Initiative which appeared to demonstrate a breakdown of Commonwealth-state coordination on a highly important and sensitive trade and foreign policy issue.
The scale of China's Belt and Road Initiative is absolutely enormous. Since 2013, more than 130 countries have signed deals or expressed interest in projects aimed at boosting trade routes along the remnants of the ancient Silk Road but also extending across the length and breadth of the Indo-Pacific region. The World Bank estimates some $575 billion worth of railways, roads, ports and other projects have been or are in the process of being built across the Indo-Pacific region. However, the Belt and Road Initiative has also come in for criticism, including charges that China is exploiting developing countries—for example, by luring them into debt traps for its own political and strategic purposes. The Australian government has been, rightly, wary of signing up to the Belt and Road Initiative without greater clarity from Beijing about China's strategic objectives and more transparency about how projects are planned, decided upon, funded and implemented.
The lack of effective consultation between the Australian and Victorian governments in relation to the memorandum of understanding was a worry. In its effort to get around the Australian government's reluctance, China's embassy certainly demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of Australia's federal system of government and the partisan fractures of Australian politics. It's been put to me that the Australian government doesn't want to upset China, and that the Chinese embassy here doesn't understand the difference between the executive and the parliament. I put it to you: they understand, perhaps more than most Australians, what the difference is. It's self-evident that Australia needs a nationally coordinated approach. This was, and is, first and foremost, the responsibility of the Australian government and the Australian parliament, with states and territories able to pursue their own initiatives within a foreign policy and trade policy framework.
An examination of these issues by the Senate's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee appeared both timely and appropriate. I proposed such an inquiry in the hope that it could have pursued this in a bipartisan spirit, with a view to producing a report in good time before the 2019 federal election. Regrettably, both the coalition and Labor opposition voted against the proposal. No public explanation was offered, although behind the scenes it was made clear to me that both the government and the opposition were fearful of China's reaction to any parliamentary inquiry. This was, I regret to say, the beginning of a worrying pattern of self-censorship by this parliament.
Following the federal election I decided to reopen the issue with a new proposal for a broader and more comprehensive inquiry. The terms of reference set out in the motion before the Senate are as follows, and I'll spell them out so that senators may appreciate the comprehensive nature of what is proposed: 'It is proposed that the FADT references committee inquire into Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China, with particular reference to: (a) the management of a mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral relationship between Australia and China; (b) Australian and Chinese perspectives on, and interests in, regional and global security issues; (c) trade, investment and infrastructure issues, including Australia's engagement with China's Belt and Road Initiative; (d) educational and research cooperation; (e) tourism, cultural exchanges and people-to-people ties; (f) management of diplomatic and consular arrangements; (g) dialogue on human rights issues; and (h) the role of Australian institutes in Australia's relationship with China, including state and local governments, universities and other academic bodies, businesses, and non-government organisations, and any related matters.'
We unquestionably need to take a holistic look at Australia's relationship with China, and these broad terms of reference intended to do just that. The Labor opposition—specifically, the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Senator Kitching—initially proposed the idea of an inquiry. I was approached by the secretary of the committee, who asked me for the terms of reference I was thinking of proposing in the new parliament, because I'd discussed the inquiry with her. I gladly shared them. The committee, I presumed, liked them, and Senator Kitching moved a motion—which I co-sponsored—but at the last moment she withdrew her name from the motion, and with that went Labor's support. To give more time for Labor to consider its position, I postponed the motion that was left standing in my name until the next sitting day—today, 9 September. The government has not been prepared to support the proposed inquiry, and privately I have been left in no doubt that they are anxious about China's reaction and are fearful that an inquiry would further expose the considerable division within its own ranks on how to deal with this major foreign policy challenge.
I had some hopes that the Labor opposition would come on board. However, last Friday the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and shadow foreign affairs spokesperson, Senator Wong, together with Senator Kitching, issued a joint statement indicating that Labor is not prepared to support the proposed Senate inquiry—at least not at this time. They gave no specific reason for this position but have instead expressed a preference for Labor parliamentarians to be provided with confidential briefings on China from relevant agencies, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Office of National Intelligence. Labor first requested such briefings more than a month ago but as of last Friday have not received a response. They might be waiting some time, because I've heard that within the government there have been dark mutterings about whether some Labor MPs and senators who are not members of the PJCIS can be trusted not to relay the content of any confidential agency briefings back to political friends of China.
Repeated revelations about China-related political donations and the connection of some senior Labor figures—current and former politicians—with businesses and educational and other connections have undoubtedly fuelled partisan distrust. In any case, I must say that the Labor opposition's decision not to support a Senate inquiry into Australia's relations with China does look like a sad act of political cowardice. The Senate inquiry proposed by Centre Alliance, which Senator Kitching would have chaired, would have provided a much-needed forum for an open and comprehensive discussion of this hugely important relationship. And I point out that Senator Kitching is a most responsible senator. There is no fear in her chairing a committee in relation to China. I think she absolutely understands the importance of the relationship and the need to explore the benefits and, as I said before, the areas where we need caution.
Such an inquiry would facilitate more-holistic policy development and involve a full range of expertise and interest from within and outside the Australian government, not just the national security agencies. Sometimes when you just get a government department perspective that's all you get: a government department perspective. That's the great thing about Senate inquiries: we get all sorts of perspectives. Such an inquiry could help break down the partisan distrust that has been growing and help build a new foundation for bipartisanship on this absolutely critical issue. But in Labor's view China is so sensitive an issue that it can be discussed only behind closed doors, in private briefings, and certainly not in the earshot of the Australian public. Labor's claimed commitment to bipartisanship looks like a political party that's running scared.
Labor might well be anxious to avoid any new opportunity for examination of the question of Chinese government political interference and interference through targeted political donations and networking, especially in relation to the New South Wales Labor machine. But it might also be the case that the Chinese embassy's parliamentary lobbying has proved effective. It's no secret that senior officers of the Chinese embassy have visited the parliament and made it clear that they would very much prefer any discussions of Australia's relationships with China to be narrowly focused into what they regard as safe topics, such as bilateral trade opportunities and positive engagement with the Belt and Road Initiative. That lobbying, together with other channels of influence, may explain Labor's position. Maybe they can stand up and explain why they're not supporting this inquiry.
However, my disappointment is not only with the Labor opposition. The coalition government have consistently opposed any open inquiry on relations with China and, indeed, the Prime Minister and foreign minister have also been active in seeking to suppress or dismiss any independent expression of opinion from their own backbench. All this is deeply unhealthy for the parliament and Australia's democratic system.
Although the parliament recently legislated a range of measures intended to prevent, or at least curb, foreign interference and covert influence in Australian politics, the response of the coalition and Labor to this proposed inquiry suggests that Chinese soft power may already be being very effective in making its presence felt, reaching into this chamber. In this, we are witnessing a much more subtle process than that involving an Aldi bag stuffed with cash. What we are seeing is political self-censorship about a key international relationship. Fear of China is already limiting open debate, analysis and policy consideration. That unquestioningly bodes ill for Australian democracy and our sovereignty.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): What I might do is go to Senator Roberts, because Senator Roberts has been sitting here for the last hour.
Senator Gallagher interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, did the government jump up? Thank you, Senator Gallagher; I did not see that. You can understand that there was a flurry of activity in my line of sight. Sorry, Minister. Sorry, Senator Roberts; I will come to you after.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (20:26): Just on Senator Patrick's motion, there will be only a brief contribution from the government. I thank the opposition for drawing that to the chair's attention. Australia's relationship with China is important. It is complex and it engages the full range of national interests. We will continue to be clear and consistent in the management of our relations with China. We will reject any attempts to politicise this. There's great benefit to our close cooperation with China on issues of mutual interest, including on how we can contribute to regional prosperity, stability and also security. We manage any bilateral issues from a national interest perspective on the basis of mutual respect, including on issues of sovereignty, for which we make no apology.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Roberts, with your indulgence, I would like to go to Senator Gallagher, because there was a bit of time spent in Senator Patrick's contribution on questions to the opposition.
Senator Di Natale: Mr Acting Deputy President, I would just remind you that convention would have it that as the leader of the third biggest party in the Senate I should be given the call over Senator Roberts.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Where would I be without you, Senator Di Natale? Seriously! There is no point of order. I call Senator Gallagher, and Senator Roberts will be next.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (20:27): I thank fellow senators for the opportunity this evening to speak to this. It's clear there's a strong interest among members and senators in the management of Australia's relationship with China. There have been many expressions of this interest, including this proposal from Senator Patrick for an inquiry. Labor note the government will not be supporting an inquiry, but we believe that the call for an inquiry reflects the broader desire amongst parliamentarians to be better briefed on the points of convergence and the points of divergence in Australia's relationship with China.
China is, and will continue to be, of great importance to Australia, the region and the world. The key question for Australia is: how do we make the relationship best work for us? It is reasonable and appropriate for parliamentarians to want assurance that our national interest is being served, and access to quality briefing is critical in constructive parliamentary engagement. Last month, in the interests of a calm and mature debate and the hope of continuing a bipartisan approach to the relationship, Labor wrote to the foreign minister requesting that relevant agencies such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Office of National Intelligence provide a detailed and comprehensive briefing for parliamentarians on Australia's relationship with China. Labor have not received a response, but recent events have only emphasised that Australia's relationship with China is complex and consequential and getting more so.
Last week, Labor formally reiterated our request for a comprehensive briefing, which we maintain is a critical first step in parliamentary engagement. We have also determined that the proposed inquiry is not the best approach to the discussion at this time. Labor are also establishing caucus processes for engagement on this subject, because Labor believe it is the job of all parliamentarians to protect and advance the national interest. The national interest is best served by a bipartisan approach to the relationship. This does not mean uncritical support for the government's approach. Rather, it means a sensible, calm and mature discussion, without seeking to exploit complexities in the China relationship for political advantage.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (20:30): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I would like to say that One Nation is supportive of the motion that Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and preparation of a report. It is imperative that Australia and China maintain a mutually respective and beneficial bilateral relationship, and I thank Senator Patrick for moving this motion.
China is Australia's largest two-way trading partner—export market and import source—representing 24 per cent of total trade, with a value of a staggering $183 billion. Australia is China's sixth-largest trading partner and fifth-biggest supplier of imports. Twenty-five per cent of Australia's manufactured imports come from China, and 13 per cent of Australia's exports, including thermal coal, go to China. A free trade agreement was signed between the two countries in June 2015.
In more recent times, China has embarked on the One Belt, One Road initiative, as Senator Patrick drew to our attention. This is a Chinese economic and strategic agenda where Eurasia, Africa and Oceania are more closely tied along two routes—one land route and one maritime route. Those who support the initiative say that it facilitates the development of infrastructure and economic aid to needy economies. On the other hand, it can be said to facilitate Chinese economic and strategic domination of smaller countries on the route—some near us. In Australia we see growing Chinese involvement in projects from northern Australia to Tasmania, all providing little benefit to Australia but substantial benefit to China.
Other examples of Chinese involvement have been in the funding and support of local academic conferences and seminars. One of the ongoing issues of mutual concern relates to regional and global security. The growing tensions between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China in terms of imposition of trade tariffs is placing Australia in a challenging position, given the importance of Australia's relationships with both these countries. Similarly, the views taken of China's growing military influence in the South China Sea remain of concern to the United States of America and necessarily Australia as an established ally of the United States. Regionally, China is having a growing influence by funding infrastructure projects for some of the Pacific island countries and Papua New Guinea on our northerly doorstep. This runs the risk of changing the dynamic between Australia and our near neighbours.
Australia is a destination of choice for many Chinese students to further their education in our Australian academic institutions. In 2018, there were more than 166,000 enrolments of Chinese students in Australia representing 43.3 per cent of the total international student cohort—almost half. Noted in some Australian universities is the potential dependence generated by full-fee-paying international students on the overall money pool available to the universities' budgets. The concern is that, should those numbers suddenly diminish, some of those universities may be left destitute.
The unfettered Chinese development of five research bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory is of growing concern to many of us at a time when Australian investment into its three bases in that territory has been considered relatively conservative by comparison. Given the potential for military and strategic use of these bases by China and the potential for resource extraction at some future time, there is a need to consider this factor when examining our increasingly important and complex relationships with China.
Australia is also a favoured destination for Chinese tourists and this is shown by recent numbers. More than 1.3 million Chinese tourists visited Australia last year, representing 15 per cent of the total of visitors to our country. This is a clear positive for Australia. At the same time, there is a growing boom of tourists heading to China, which is welcoming tourists from around the world, including 700,000 of them from Australia alone.
Human rights, though, is a massive and huge issue where China and Australia have complex competing views. Australia is a democracy and a signatory to many international agreements that preserve basic human rights. China is a totalitarian republic following a communist regime that is very rigid, with little room to question the state and having limited rights for the individual. One only has to turn on the news and watch the demonstrations for freedom happening in Hong Kong to see how that goes down. Many Australians remember the events of Tiananmen Square. The detention of those whose views differ from those of the regime is a continuing disgrace and worthy of further review.
Currently Australian writer Yang Hengjun is being detained in China in harsh conditions and has been charged with spying—a serious issue that could bring the death penalty if he is found guilty. He has published works promoting democracy and seems to be now paying the penalty for having a different point of view and daring to express it. An Australian expressing his point of view—what could be more natural? He has been denied access to his lawyers and family. I'll now read selectively from an article in the Weekend Australian by the president of the Law Council of Australia, Arthur Moses. He points out:
After travelling to China with his family, the democracy advocate and academic was detained in January on the allegation of being suspected of "endangering national security".
Since then he has been held in harsh conditions without charge, with limited access to consular assistance. He has not been permitted to talk to his lawyers or see his family.
His lawyers do not even know the particulars of the allegations against him. As I said, Yang is an Australian citizen. Arthur Moses also writes:
Being a true friend and ally of any nation means when issues arise in a foreign justice system affecting Australian citizens, we are obliged to speak up.
This is the president of the Law Council of Australia. He goes on to say:
As a blogger, he has written thousands of articles promoting the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and built up a large following in China.
These fundamental things that Yang is fighting for go back to our country's roots in the Magna Carta, to our own Constitution and to the tenet of presumption of innocence. Mr Moses goes on further to say:
Yang and detainees like him must be treated humanely in a fair, transparent manner …
Mr Moses says that this is really important for our own future, and then says:
But it is the rule of law that most strongly drives economic performance.
Without the rule of law, there can be no stable, strong economy—and that is core.
I make note of the LNP's Andrew Hastie's courageous comments about China—frank and open comments about China. I note Senator Patrick's comments about Senator Kimberley Kitching from the Labor Party being a co-sponsor initially. That's on the public record. I wonder—a question of Senator Patrick—is Labor worried about losing donations rather than just simply being cowed? Then we have, as Senator Patrick pointed out, the New South Wales ICAC's ruminations right now. We have questions over the Liberal Party's interactions with Chinese influences. It's not just the Labor Party. We have land ownership issues that are upsetting many, many Australians, including One Nation supporters. We have essential infrastructure being handed over to the Chinese to control our ports, our electricity supply and potentially our railroads. And when Clive Hamilton becomes an ally in saying exactly these things, and warning us of China's influence, then it's really a point to take note, because we don't see eye to eye with Clive Hamilton on very many issues. I hope paragraph (h) in Senator Patrick's motion includes political institutions as well, not just university institutions.
In summary, China is a vital and important trading partner. There are military and security questions associated with this large and increasingly powerful country, there are human rights issues and there are fundamentals about the practice of law. This is a complex relationship, as Senator Patrick has the courage to point out, and it must be inquired into for the benefit of our future, for the planning of our future and for the security and safeguarding of our future. Government has three fundamental roles: to protect life, protect property and protect freedom. There are needs in this inquiry to ensure that it protects Australia's future, but there are also enormous opportunities, as Senator Patrick pointed out, if we understand this relationship and the potential for the future. One Nation supports the call for such an inquiry into a nation exerting powerful influences on our nation and on key institutions in our nation and with potentially far more powerful influences in our nation's future. For the people of Australia, I urge senators to support Senator Patrick and this motion.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (20:40): I rise to speak in support of this referral motion from Senator Patrick. Australia's relationship with China has quite rightly been very widely debated within the community and certainly within the media over recent months, and how we manage this relationship is one of the critical foreign policy questions of our generation. It's a critical foreign policy question for this government, and no doubt it will continue to be a critical question for future governments over the decades to come.
It's a complex relationship. There are many facets to this relationship, including our trade relationship. It's an important trading partner. Of course, that's come into stark relief when you look at the trade war that's now going on between China and Trump's America. We know that China has sought to increase its influence across the world through its Belt and Road Initiative. Of course, its influence across the Pacific and indeed here in Australia is something that many of us have become increasingly aware of. You need only look at what's going on in New South Wales right now with the ICAC hearings to know how wide and deep the reach of the Chinese Communist Party goes. Indeed, what we heard from the former ASIO chief was that in his view the issue of foreign interference in democratic countries is the threat facing Australia—a bigger threat than the threat of terrorism, for example. Again, we've had recent examples of that, where the databases of our major political parties were hacked into by foreign influencers. So there are many facets to this relationship. Of course, it's an important trading partner and it is a country with growing influence across the world.
But one of the things that are often absent in any debate about Australia's relationship with China is our approach to China's human rights record. Just a few months ago, we saw our flagship current affairs program, Four Corners, dedicate an episode to the appalling human rights abuses being committed in China's Xinjiang region against its Turkic Muslim population. Xinjiang has a Turkic Muslim population of 13 million people, and out of those 13 million people one million are arbitrarily detained without any legal process. I'll say that again: one million people are being rounded up and arbitrarily detained—some for weeks, some for months and some for years. Families are being torn apart. Those incarcerated are subject to forced labour and sometimes to torture and forced political indoctrination. Of course, outside the camps Uygurs and other Turkic Muslims are denied the right to freedom of movement and freedom of religion. The mass surveillance that's going on at the moment in Xinjiang is terrifying. People going about their daily business are watched constantly by the state and forced to give their biometric data. Face- and voice-recognition technology is being used as a tool of repression.
I had the great privilege in our last sitting week to meet some of the Uygur Australians whose lives have been irreparably altered by China's devastating repression. I met people like Sadam, who is a young man whose wife and baby are trapped in China right now, and people like Almas, whose mum is in a camp and whose wife is in prison simply for studying in Egypt. The situation of the Uygur community within China is something that the Australian government needs to stand up against and make its voice heard on.
But, of course, it's not just what's going on with the Uygurs. We know of the injustices perpetrated against the Tibetan people by the Chinese government, with Tibetans being deprived of their right to democracy again, deprived of their right to freedom of speech and deprived of their right to freedom of religious observance. Right now, people in Tibet can be locked up for years simply for doing things like making documentaries and documenting the plight of their people. Tibetan monks and nuns are being forced by Chinese authorities to act as propagandists for the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party. There are plans right now for massive nature reserves in Tibet, which further threaten the dispossession of Tibetan nomads, under the guise of protecting a unique and important ecosystem.
This referral motion that we're discussing today couldn't be more timely when you consider that it's occurring at a moment in history when there is a rising pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong stood firm in the face of a fearsome build-up of force on the border, an overpowering and violent police presence, the unleashing of tear gas and rubber bullets and threats of arrests and reprisals. I had the privilege of meeting with young students from Hong Kong studying here in Australia who have been targeted while they have been here in Australia and are concerned that they are themselves being victims of surveillance.
Beijing is overseeing the withdrawal of what has been described as the extradition bill, but we know that the response from Hong Kong and the authorities there, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, falls a long way short in meeting the demands of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement. The police brutality going on in Hong Kong right now is shocking. The pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong are rightly calling for an independent investigation into that police brutality, and, to date, the authorities have refused to grant that request. And, of course, they are not even considering the demand for universal suffrage—something that the people of Hong Kong believe, as do we, is essential in any properly functioning democracy.
So, of course, the Senate should be examining in detail our relationship with China in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. If we can't examine an issue of such critical importance to the Australian community as our relationship with China, then what on earth is the point of that committee? So far the Morrison government has failed to take any meaningful action against all of these egregious human rights abuses. So here is an opportunity for our parliament to show some leadership and to look at this issue in detail. It's hardly a surprise that support for this referral is coming from the crossbench. When you consider that both major parties have been the beneficiary of those huge donations flowing into the bank accounts of both sides of politics, it's no wonder that they both appear to have been cowed into inaction. I have to say that it is with great disappointment that we now see that the ALP has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of this motion. It's hardly a surprise that the government would not support it. Of course, the timing is impeccable when you consider what is going on right now with the revelations from New South Wales ICAC. You have to wonder if this is what $100,000 in an Aldi bag buys you.
When it comes to our relationship with China, there is no more important issue right now than ensuring that we examine, in great detail, all dimensions of that relationship. And far too often absent from that discourse is any discussion about how Australia should address the issue of human rights abuses occurring in China. This was an opportunity to put those issues on the national agenda, and to have a detailed, thorough and forensic look at what it is that we can do—as a nation that should be a beacon for human rights and democracy around the world—to ensure that, at least when it comes to the actions of the Chinese government, the view of hardworking, decent Australians is reflected in the relationships with other countries abroad.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (20:50): I rise to strongly support Senator Patrick's motion, because an inquiry such as this would assist in us having a really important national conversation in this country. And that needs to be a conversation around what the nature of Australia's relationship with China should be, and what the nature of our relationship with the Chinese government should be. Central to that conversation, there needs to be an assessment about what kind of government it is that currently holds power in China. We need to understand that the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, is unmistakably a totalitarian regime. It's unmistakably a regime with absolute disdain for human rights. It is certainly a regime with a demonstrated track record of cracking down ruthlessly on dissent and on cultural difference. If you don't agree, I suggest you find a Tibetan person in Australia and ask them about their lived history and the lived history of their families, where we have seen the Chinese Communist Party run a program of mass murder and a certain attempt to destroy the Tibetan culture.
But the CCP is also a government that cracks down ruthlessly on democracy. On Sunday a week ago, on 1 September, I hosted some Hong Kong students who are currently studying at the University of Tasmania. I invited a number of them into my Senate office, where we erected a Lennon wall in the window of my office, which fronts on to Macquarie Street in the Hobart CBD. For those who don't know, Lennon walls, in the context of the current struggles in Hong Kong, have sprung up around the world and have allowed students from Hong Kong who support democracy in Hong Kong to express their views in numerous countries around the world. And the reason I did that was that the Lennon walls at the University of Tasmania had been pulled down—destroyed or damaged—on more than one occasion. Now, we don't know who destroyed or damaged the Lennon walls at the University of Tasmania but, as someone who strongly supports democracy and as someone who watches around the world as the foundations of many democracies are starting to fracture and crumble—as they are, by the way, in this country—I wanted to do something to help those brave students from Hong Kong, who at the moment happen to be in Tasmania, to have their voices heard. So it was a profoundly powerful evening in my office, where the sticky notes went up, including one with the slogan of the Hong Kong protesters: 'Be water'—which is the most beautiful way of resisting, when you think about it. Anyone who saw Four Corners a couple of weeks ago would know about how the protesters attend in one particular location in Hong Kong and then, when the security apparatus arrives, they drift away through the subways or the streets and they spring up at another location in Hong Kong, just like water does as it runs downhill.
What I can say, having spent a long time in conversation with some of the Hong Kong students currently in Tasmania, is that many of the students who are currently demonstrating against, protesting and resisting CCP influence in Hong Kong and who are actively standing up for democracy in Hong Kong believe they're fighting for their very lives. They believe that this is the only time that they will have and that, if they don't win this one, they're not going to win at all. That's why I look at what's going on in Hong Kong with fear in my heart, because we saw at Tiananmen Square what the Chinese government has been prepared to do in the past to people who showed dissent and who stood up against them. We've seen a Nobel Peace Prize-winning democracy activist die in prison in China. The track record of the CCP on cracking down on dissent has been written through the pages of recent human history.
Now we have the situation that the Uygurs in China find themselves in. The United Nations believes there are credible reports that 1.1 million Uygurs have currently been imprisoned. There are some estimates that the number is as high as three million Uygurs currently detained in what the Chinese government calls re-education facilities, but I describe as concentration camps. I just want to read a little bit of testimony from a Uygur man called Muhammad Attawulla who comes from southern Xinjiang. He's been studying in Turkey since 2016, but he's told ABC News that he has five relatives in detention, including his mother, two brothers and a brother-in-law. I just want to read what he told the ABC recently:
The detentions have destroyed my family … We can say it [has also] destroyed Uighur society … I cannot bear keeping silent [any more] because I think there's a genocide taking place in East Turkestan.
I should say that East Turkestan is the name that many Uygur people use to refer to their homeland. Mr Attawulla went on to say of the Chinese government that:
They want to erase, erase, erase your identity and our culture and to melt them into Han Chinese.
Make no mistake, these are rampant human rights abuses on a scale that the world has never seen before that are going on in China at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party government. We used to join economic boycotts against regimes who did this kind of thing, albeit on a smaller scale. For example, economic sanctions and sporting sanctions were applied against South Africa during the apartheid era. Let me tell you: what the Chinese government is doing to its own citizens at the moment dwarfs anything that Australia has applied sanctions for in recent history, and it's beyond time that we had a mature debate about how we as a country respond to human rights abuses like these.
In contributions to this debate, we have heard Mr Duncan Lewis, the outgoing director-general of ASIO, saying that foreign influence and interference is an existential threat to our country and a threat far more serious than the threat of terrorism. We know there's been significant influence exercised in Australian universities by the CCP, and we know that there's been significant influence exercised by the CCP in Australia's major political parties. We had the $100,000 in cash in the Aldi bag that was delivered to the New South Wales branch of the ALP. We saw the slow-motion train-smash that ended former senator Sam Dastyari's political career, and I genuinely don't believe that the Liberal Party is immune from this kind of influence. Senator Patrick has made some observations in his speech about that.
I want to speak briefly about my home state of Tasmania. It's worth pointing out that President Xi actually visited Tasmania in 2014. Just before he arrived, I wrote an opinion piece for the Mercury newspaper, in which I raised some of my, and the Greens', human rights concerns with the Chinese government, but I also raised concern that President Xi wasn't coming to Tasmania for the wilderness or the pinot noir but that he was coming to case the joint. I stand by that prediction, because what we've seen since that visit in 2014 is an exponential increase in the interest of the Chinese government in Tasmania.
At the time, I described—accurately, by the way—the Chinese government as a 'junta', and I was called a xenophobe by then opposition leader and current Premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman. Calling critics of the Chinese government racists and xenophobes is straight out of the playbook of the Chinese Communist Party. It is what they tell their operatives in foreign countries to do. So I took that as a compliment and I stand by my description of the Chinese Communist Party as a junta, because it came to power using armed force and retains its grip on power using not only armed force but also new digital technologies as tools to repress its own people.
I want to say one other thing about Tasmania. Down in Tasmania, we are on the frontline of CCP influence. Because of President Xi's visit in 2014, there has been significant interest—and significant purchase of land—by private companies and individuals, many of which are bankrolled by the Bank of China, which is totally under the control of the Chinese government. We need to make sure that we have the debate in a mature and rational way, of course; but we need to be on guard, not only in Tasmania but right around Australia, about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government in this country.
I want to end with a prediction. At some stage in the future—and I hope it's soon—Australians will look back on today's debate and they'll wonder how the Senate could have walked past its responsibility to conduct this inquiry. They will wonder what influence or control or threats were issued or exercised on our major political parties—the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal and National parties in this country—that they would not support an entirely reasonable and rational proposal for this inquiry put forward by Senator Patrick. They will wonder what cost to Australia's strategic, economic, cultural and security future will be imposed because of a cowardly failure by the major parties to stand up and do their job in this place.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (21:04): I thank senators for their input in this debate. Just going to the government's comments about the fact that this is a complex relationship with China, I don't disagree with that statement for a moment, but it's because of that complexity that we don't simply want to leave suggestions and perspectives only to government departments. Government departments don't always see some of the things that other Australians might. Government departments don't always get it right—and I mean that respectfully. We would benefit from the submissions of many. We would benefit from hearing from many. Indeed, there could even be opportunity for the committee itself to visit China to get a close and up-front perspective, perhaps presented to it by the Chinese government.
Labor's solution to this I find quite disturbing. We are facing a fairly significant change in our foreign, economic and strategic policy, and their response to that is that we should all have private briefings. We should all sit in a room and just listen to what government agencies tell us, well away from the earshot of the Australian public, who would be most interested in this particular topic because it is a most important relationship. I take Senator Roberts's point about political institutions, and perhaps 'any related matters' might cover that, but thank you for that consideration.
I'll just close off with a couple of rhetorical questions. I just wonder why it was okay in 2005 and 2006 for the Senate to conduct an inquiry into China, quite respectfully. What's changed that we can no longer do that? Certainly we know the importance to Australia of China has changed. I just wonder whether or not, if I had moved a reference motion for an inquiry into the United States and our relationship with the United States, we'd have, perhaps, a different response from government and the opposition. Just listening to people kind of made me think, 'Why does China fear such an inquiry?' I'm not sure it would. Why would the government and the opposition not go down this pathway? Is there something that the Chinese fear? I think we should think about that. More importantly, why is this chamber not going to support a comprehensive inquiry into what I consider to be the most important relationship we will have—certainly economically—moving into the future? I just can't help but think there's a bit of kowtowing taking place here from both of the major political parties. With that, I put the question.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Well, that's actually my job. You can commend the motion to the Senate. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Patrick for a reference to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [21:13]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)
BILLS
Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (21:18): I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. This is an important piece of legislation which will ensure that two current royal commissions, into aged care and disability, have the capacity to hold private sessions to hear from participants. The bill responds to a request to the government from the royal commissioners and draws on the lessons from the royal commission into child sexual abuse, which made use of private sessions. Given the highly sensitive nature of these royal commissions, we believe that this is a necessary and appropriate power for the commissioners to have.
Many people who seek to give evidence to these commissions are vulnerable members of our community who have been through terrible personal experiences. It is completely understandable why they may not be comfortable appearing in public before a royal commission. It is vital that the commissions do not lose the valuable insights that these people are able to share because of their discomfort in appearing publicly. These sessions will help supplement the evidence that the commissions will collect in their normal public hearings. Obviously, private sessions are not open to the public. Importantly, information obtained in these private sessions can only be used by the commission in its report if it has been de-identified to protect the privacy of participants.
Participants in private sessions are also not cross-examined and information given in the sessions cannot be used against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings. This includes defamation action. It is also an offence to inappropriately disclose information shared at a private session by a participant. These protections should give confidence to those potential participants that they can come forward and share their insights without any fear of repercussions. All of us have probably participated in parliamentary inquiries which have used private sessions in a similar way and for the same purpose. In my experience, in my short time in this place, these can be both valuable sources of information for committees, and an important vehicle for witnesses to ensure that their story is heard.
The government will also move amendments to the bill to respond to feedback from the community about the bill. It will ensure that only royal commissioners themselves, and not delegated staff, can conduct these private sessions. These amendments are designed to give further confidence to potential participants that the sensitive information that they may wish to share with a royal commission will be heard by an appropriate person—in this case, the commissioners themselves.
These two current royal commissions have incredibly important work to do, which is already underway. There is some urgency to this bill, to ensure that these commissions can make use of private sessions as soon as possible and before their work concludes. As a result, I commend its speedy passage to the chamber.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (21:21): I rise tonight to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. This bill seeks to create a legislative framework that allows for private sessions to take place during royal commissions. While the Greens support the central tenet of the bill, we are concerned about the impact that certain provisions may have on survivors.
We are particularly concerned that these provisions are a departure from past royal commissions. This includes the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, where commissioners were the only ones allowed to undertake private sessions. Having spent a great deal of time working with survivors and people that did give evidence to that royal commission, I know how profoundly important it was for people to be able to talk directly to the commissioners about their lived experience. I'm sure most people in this chamber know that for some people it was the first time they were able to talk to somebody of such importance about their lived experience—or even to talk about it at all. So I know, from talking to survivors, how important it is that people have the capacity to talk directly about their deepest, darkest trauma to commissioners themselves.
By allowing assistant commissioners and senior staff to undertake private sessions, we are effectively creating what would be a three-tiered system for giving testimony, therefore creating inequality amongst those who give testimony in the form of a private session. This appears to be an attempt by government to address a capacity issue. We contend that, if there is a capacity issue, particularly for the disability royal commission, then this should be addressed through expanding the panel of commissioners. It is unjustifiable to try and address a capacity issue by creating a three-tiered system that will adversely affect the healing process of survivors. We agree that there could be a capacity issue with the disability royal commission. Only six commissioners have been appointed, two of whom have substantial conflicts of interest, as this chamber has heard on several occasions. This will affect their ability to be involved with the commission. And we know that there will likely be upwards of 10,000 submissions made. If this does occur, the government needs to increase the number of commissioners.
In our discussions with the community it was overwhelmingly clear that the concerns with the legislation as originally proposed have the potential to adversely affect survivors and diminish the significant impact that having a private session before a commissioner has. Matthew Bowden of PWDA made that clear to us when he said, 'There is something that comes from the royal commission communicating to the survivor that they are important enough and that they matter to Australia to the point that a commissioner will spend this time, one on one, with them and that this is their time and theirs only.' All of that would be lost if we had this delegated to senior staff of the royal commission, however qualified or compassionate they are.
It is unclear what the grounds are for someone being heard by a commissioner versus someone being heard by a senior staff member. Earlier today, the government circulated an amendment which amends provisions of the bill which delegate authority to conduct a private session to assistant commissioners or senior staff of the commission. We are supportive of this amendment as it seeks to remedy these issues with the potential for a three-tiered system of giving testimony.
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (21:26): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. This is an important and sensible amendment which will assist royal commissions to hear personal and sensitive evidence from witnesses in an environment which best enables them to share their experiences. The main purpose of this bill, as we have heard tonight, is to enable royal commissions to hold private sessions when appropriate. Private sessions are—perhaps self-explanatorily—a private and supported way for individuals to tell their stories about personal experiences to a royal commission.
The private sessions regime was established in the act specifically to cater for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Over 8,000 sessions were held. We are all aware of the important work of that royal commission, both in setting out recommendations to make sure that these appalling abusers are stopped but also to give victims a chance to be heard, whether that was in a public hearing or a private one. The many thousands of people who contributed their stories to that royal commission, many of them through private sessions, led to the recommendations as a result of that royal commission being so comprehensive.
The government is committed to responding to that work, and we are already seeing legislation before this parliament to do just that. Clearly, for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, it was highly necessary to have a framework in place to allow private sessions to take place. The royal commissions that have since been established by this government into aged-care quality and safety and into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with a disability are covering similarly sensitive and difficult subjects, and there is no doubt that private sessions will allow more people to share their stories.
Subsequent to the passage of this bill, it is the government's intention to recommend to the Governor-General that both the aged-care royal commission and the disability royal commission are able to utilise these private sessions. Indeed, the chair of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the Hon. Richard Tracey AM RFD QC, and the chair of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, the Hon. Ronald Sackville AO QC, have told the government that private sessions will assist their inquiries. With both of these inquiries already underway, it is important that this bill that we are debating tonight be passed quickly so that both royal commissions can use private sessions. Of course, it would be expected that there would be future royal commissions where the option of private sessions would be needed. Indeed, this bill will ensure that can happen without having to pass further legislation to enable it.
However, the use of private sessions can have implications for the constitution of a royal commission, as well as funding impacts, and it is not a power that will be required by all royal commissions. Nor should the overuse of private sessions become the normal practice, as one of the important functions of royal commissions and one of the reasons that they are able to have such impact is that Australians can hear the evidence provided and understand the problem that is being investigated. For that reason, the bill provides that private sessions are enabled through regulation. That mechanism will require a discrete decision on whether private sessions will be useful for a particular inquiry.
What are the protections for witnesses in a private session that will be provided through this bill? A private session is not open to the public, and the information that is discussed in a private session can be used in a commission report only if it is de-identified or if the information is also given in evidence. Participation is voluntary. It is not given on an oath or affirmation and is not open to cross-examination. Importantly, a participant in a private session has the same protection as a witness. Information given by a participant cannot be used against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings. The bill largely preserves the framework for private sessions used for the child sexual abuse royal commission. However, some changes are proposed, the main change being that there will be limitations on the use and disclosure of information that will cover both information given at a private session and information given for the purposes of a private session, whether or not that session is actually held.
Private sessions in royal commissions are a very important way for us to support individuals giving evidence at royal commissions. As I've said tonight, with the two royal commissions currently underway it is pertinent to enable such sessions to be utilised in these royal commissions so that they can hear from people, many of whom are vulnerable members of our community, about their experiences and substandard care or abuse. It is certainly pertinent that this Senate addresses this issue with haste, given, as I have stated, that these two royal commissions are already underway. And I certainly hope this bill is supported by honourable senators. I commend it to the Senate.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (21:31): I am particularly pleased to be able to make a contribution to the debate this evening on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. I commence by recording that Labor supports the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. The reasons that we want to support this bill, which will enable the royal commission to hold private sessions where a regulation is made under the Royal Commissions Act authorising it to do so, is that it is the right thing to do if one understands what a participatory democracy might look like.
Just today I was having a conversation with some of my colleagues about the challenges embedded in some legislation that's about to come before us around people's participation in our democracy. Being a former teacher and being in school and teaching in the period when the concept of civics and citizenship has been discussed widely and reported on widely, I note that there is a great gap between teaching civics—the design and shape of our particular democracy in Australia—and citizenship. What it is about this bill that particularly appeals to me is that it is an active making of law, in our time here in the parliament, that acknowledges that citizenship and citizens' participation in parliamentary processes and formal processes of lawmaking and truth-telling in our country is not beyond our capacity to enable. That's why I think this particular piece of legislation is particularly important.
In 2013, when I was a member in the other place, I was very proud to be part of the Gillard government, which amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to allow the chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to authorise a fellow commissioner to hold a private session to receive information from victims and others affected by child sexual abuse. That is our great shame, not just as a nation but as human beings—that the sort of truth-telling we've had about the incredible abuse of young people in institutional care is now a matter of record. But, happily, it is a matter of record that is both private and appropriately enabled and public in ways that protected individuals but allowed the truth to be told. And that is what is at the heart of this piece of legislation that we're debating this evening. In effect, this bill would extend the private sessions regime that applied to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and to other royal commissions, including the disability and aged care royal commissions.
A traditional royal commission hearing setting is quite a formal place. For many people, it's the kind of encounter with the institutions that support democracy that they might never have seen, never have known, never have experienced and never have developed the skills to manage. So it's important that we provide ways to participate in our democracy that are not so far a stretch for ordinary citizens that they feel they can't participate. In fact, I recall in a number of hearings that we had around mental health—particularly, I'm recalling one in Sydney when we were talking about the impact of bullying in the workplace—that we were able to allow an open mic session at the end to allow people to come forward and put on the record their experience. Now, that was in a public forum and in a public setting. We took a small amount of in camera hearings from people speaking about their experience, but predominantly those who stepped forward were comfortable enough and determined enough to tell their story in a public place so that we could have the benefit of their lived experience to contribute to the way in which we might discern and determine policy going forward.
One of the things that good teachers across this country know is that not everybody in a classroom who has a view has the skills and capacity to speak into that classroom space. Those of us who enjoyed school—and certainly those of us in this chamber who quite like the sound of our own voices!—might have been quite comfortable speaking in the public place of a classroom. But for many young people in schools, the speech part of English language development—reading, writing, speaking and listening—is a very difficult thing to do. In fact, being in a room with more than just yourself is considered a form of public speaking. When you're speaking in a formal situation, such as giving evidence to a royal commission, not only is it predominantly in a public setting for the benefit of the public knowledge and the public policymaking that can be done but it is also there for the catharsis, sometimes, of the individual who wishes to put on the record and perhaps to distance themselves in some way from the action that they're reporting and tell the truth in the public place. Levels of competency to do that vary greatly across the country amongst Australians. That's why this innovation in our time as lawmakers with discernment to allow for private sessions is a significant step forward.
We know that private sessions in the recent Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse allowed them to hear from survivors and victims about their experience of abuse in a private and safe setting, which was the only setting for those particular people who had truth to tell, who were courageous enough to come forward, but didn't need or didn't seek or perhaps couldn't survive the further trauma of the experience of telling their story publicly. For many survivors, we know that telling their story is a deeply personal and sometimes traumatic experience. But, thanks to the private sessions that were enabled in the course of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, that commission was actually able to hear over 8,000 personal stories in private sessions. I do wonder, from a mental health point of view, how challenging that was for both the participants in the telling of their stories and the participants in the receiving of those stories, because some of the evidence that has been made public is chilling.
It's hard to believe that men and women could be so inhumane as to inflict such violence on young people in their care. It's a great shame on our nation. It was heartbreaking for us as Australians to hear these stories, but the power of telling your story as one of those 8,000 people, where a private session was an option, is something that we as lawmakers learned from, because we knew that it did good work for the citizens of this country not only in what it revealed and enabled us to understand better but also in what it allowed those survivors to claim, to own and to have power over. For some of the survivors who put their story on the record, telling their story in one of those private sessions was the first time in their life that they'd actually been able to tell someone about their abuse—the first time! For others, it was perhaps not the first time of telling their story but the first time that someone in a position of authority had given value to their story by making the space to sit and listen. One survivor told the royal commission:
After 50 years I finally feel I've been heard. People have listened to me before, but no one has really heard me.
There is some significant detail in the legislation that's before us. The particular regime that's being proposed tonight is very likely to prove equally valuable to people with a disability and people living in aged care who have been subject to abuse. It's the experience of that former royal commission, with its significant recommendations, that's led us to be hopeful that that is the case. This legislation is like some other significant pieces of legislation that are being considered for listing on the Notice Paper, some that are already on the Notice Paper and some that are subject to review by the Senate. This bill does have human rights implications. I noticed in the explanatory memorandum that it particularly invokes article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These go to the freedom provisions within the ICCPR to honour Australia's commitment to enacting legislation that provides that:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
This right may 'be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary, on limited grounds', including 'for respect of the rights or reputations of others.'
I am pleased that this piece of legislation, as I see it, does enable voice in a range of ways in the context of a private hearing. Further, the purpose of these private sessions doesn't restrict the individual's rights to freedom in terms of the mode in which they're able to provide their story. There are limits that will be wrapped around this piece of legislation. As some of the former contributors to the debate this evening have indicated, there will be protections to make sure that the disclosure of information that's received in private is properly managed. Importantly, the proposal is that it treats records containing information obtained at or given for the purposes of a private session in the same way as census information so that these records would come into the open-access period, under the Archives Act 1983, 99 years after the year the record came into existence; that refers to section 6OM as amended by items 39 and 40 of schedule 1 to the bill. Why is this important? When the sensible outreach into the community of survivors of child sexual abuse was achieved, there were some concerns about what would happen to that information that was received in private, in terms of reputational damage to others that might not be appropriate to have on the public record and what would happen to it. I am pleased that the legislation goes to some detail with regard to the security of that information.
For further confidence, this bill, in the same schedule, excludes the right of access under the Freedom of Information Act to documents containing information obtained at or given for the purposes of a private session. That is also an important thing for people to know. If I was in a situation where I had a truth to tell, I know that I might not feel comfortable about doing it in a public place. That could be the final thing to dissuade me from telling it—if I thought somebody could come and find that information—particularly if I've experienced any sort of trauma and felt a degree of vulnerability. If we put ourselves in the shoes of those who participated in the first major inquiry, which I've referred to a number of times now, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—to the upcoming findings that we should expect with regard to disability and to abuse of people in aged-care settings—this provision in this bill is an important one to help give them the confidence that not only is the privacy of what they say contained within the room but the information that they share in that room is protected for 99 years. Even the most solicitous person who might come after information could not access that information through freedom-of-information laws. This is another very important part of this particular piece of legislation.
In closing, we know that in our country at this time there are a significant number of people in positions of authority who have the option to make ethical choices for the benefits of others or unethical choices, sometimes in the pursuit of profit over the dignity of people. While this particular piece of legislation allows truth-telling after the fact, we shouldn't miss this opportunity to make it known that the Australian parliament, as the representative of the people of this country, abhors the evidence of those 8,000 survivors with regard to child sexual abuse that it had to put on the record. The abuse of people with disability, the abuse of people in an aged-care setting, is something that is completely at odds with the spirit of the good people of this nation. Given the failings of humans, and, sadly, the recorded propensity for people in our midst to choose abuse over support, I'm pleased to support this legislation because it does good work in terms of the citizenship of this country and provides for a more civilised nation.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (21:49): Firstly, I acknowledge the cooperation of the opposition, particularly in the work we've been doing on the amendments to the legislation. It's very much appreciated. On the bill itself, in the few moments that I have left: the bill passed in the other place made provision for the chair or sole commissioner to authorise assistant commissioners to hold private sessions. The bill placed limits on the circumstances in which an assistant minister could be authorised to hold a private session. Only appropriately qualified and senior staff on the commission can be authorised as an assistant commissioner. The bill made a presumption that private sessions must be held by a commissioner.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ) (21:50): It being 9.50, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
World Suicide Prevention Day
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (21:50): Tomorrow, Tuesday 10 September, is World Suicide Prevention Day. World Suicide Prevention Day is organised by the International Association for Suicide Prevention. This year, the aim of World Suicide Prevention Day is to get people talking about suicide and to 'shine a light on suicide prevention'. So let's talk about suicide, and let's talk about prevention.
Intentional self-harming and suicide affect all demographics of our community. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics released last year tells us that in 2017, 3,128 people in Australia died from self-harm. This was an increase of 9.1 per cent from 2016. That is 8.57 deaths by suicide every day. The rate of suicide in Australia isn't going down, either. Over the 10 years from 2008 to 2017, the standardised death rates from suicide increased from 10.9 deaths per 100,000 persons in 2008 to 12.6 in 2017. Every state and territory saw an increase over this period. The rate of suicide for males remains higher than for females; in fact, men are three times more likely to commit suicide than women. In 2017, there were 19.1 male deaths by suicide per 100,000 people, compared to 6.2 deaths for females.
We also know that suicide significantly affects younger people. Over one-third of all deaths of males aged 15 to 19 years were by suicide. Young adults who take their lives are also more likely to have accompanying drug and alcohol use disorders. Particular communities are also more prone to suicidal ideation. We know that members of the LGBTIQA+ community have a disproportionately high risk of mental ill-health and suicidal behaviour. People in rural and remote communities are also more susceptible to self-harm and suicide, where access to effective services and healthcare professionals remains a challenge. The rate of suicide in rural and regional areas is about 40 times higher than in major cities and almost twice the rate in remote areas. In 2016, 47 per cent of all suicides occurred outside of capital city regions.
The recent Senate community affairs committee inquiry into regional and remote mental health services heard about the complexities around providing adequate services to these communities and the significant consequences when help is not readily available. The committee heard from the Black Dog Institute, ReachOut, Beyond Blue and headspace, all of whom have developed a range of electronic mental health materials in an effort to equip regional communities with resources to tackle mental ill-health and suicidal ideation. Whilst innovations in this space will continue to assist rural and regional communities, they cannot ever fully replace face-to-face mental health support services and suicide prevention programs.
The high rate of suicide in remote and regional areas is also closely linked to the greater proportion of First Nations peoples and communities in these regions. First Nations peoples are increasingly over-represented in suicide statistics. In 2017, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had a rate of suicide approximately twice that of non-Indigenous people. Within the first three months of 2019, there were 35 known suicides by Aboriginal people. This included five young Aboriginal girls aged between 12 and 15 who took their own lives earlier this year. This really is our nation's great shame. In response to these cases, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, NACCHO, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have called on the Prime Minister and state and territory leaders to declare Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth suicide an urgent national health priority. Just last week, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard reiterated the urgent need for action, noting that the rising rate of suicide amongst First Nations peoples is one of the greatest challenges of our time, requiring profound reform.
This is a national crisis and we have to do more to support the development of culturally safe early prevention and support programs. Further to this, it is important to understand the underlying problems associated with First Nations suicide. The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation explained that the historical and contemporary colonisation practices, including forced removal from land and forced removal of children from families, have led to continuing intergenerational trauma and disempowerment. These traumas continue to contribute to the increased rate of suicide and self-harm amongst First Nations peoples.
This is why it is absolutely essential that these communities have access to health professionals who have a deep understanding of the ongoing effects of colonisation. These communities also need specialists who can bring long-term relationships and bridge trust deficiencies. They also need specialists who are local people and have expertise in the area. I'd like to mention the work of Dr Tracy Westerman as an example of the excellent work being done by Aboriginal practitioners. Dr Westerman does fantastic work through her scholarship program for First Nations psychologists.
First Nations communities must also be provided with the support they need to develop their own culturally safe action plans. A range of community driven action plans to assist in the prevention of suicide have been rolled out across the Kimberley region of WA. NACCHO explains that these programs are centred on people working and walking together on country, with a focus on healing and sharing of cultural knowledge and traditions and with close engagement with elders. NACCHO have called on the government to provide secure and long-term funding to enable Aboriginal community controlled health services to develop and deliver similar preventive programs across Australia.
Across all sections of our society, the development of suicide prevention programs is critical. Research modelling by the Black Dog Institute has shown that preventive programs have the potential to prevent 21 per cent of deaths by suicide and 30 per cent of suicide attempts. But we need programs that are effective for their target group, whether it be specific age groups, cultures or communities. We also know that one of the highest risk factors to future suicide attempts is a past attempt. The government have committed to rolling out The Way Back support program with Beyond Blue to support people who have recently been admitted to hospital following a suicide attempt. The Victorian state government is also currently trialling the Hospital Outreach Post-suicidal Engagement, HOPE, initiative, which provides intensive person-centred support for leaving an emergency department or medical ward following treatment for an attempted suicide. The program has supported more than 800 people so far and is being expanded across the state.
The Australian Greens support Mental Health Australia's call to further increase Commonwealth funding for such community based assertive outreach programs, as these are a proven method of reducing further suicide attempts. Funding needs to be increased for prevention and early intervention programs and to create a more accessible and person-centred mental health system.
But we need to go further in our thinking. The recently released report titled Psychosocial risk factors as they relate to coroner-referred deaths in Australia identified problems in relationships and economic circumstances as key factors when it came to suicidality. This means that we have to start looking at suicide as more than a mental health issue. The statistics show us that suicide is getting worse in Australia, and so we must keep shining a light on this issue. In fact, it needs to be a very big spotlight. Our role as parliamentarians is to ensure that we're looking after all Australians, particularly our most vulnerable. This is a confronting issue but we must not back down. I urge the government to do more to combat the rising rate of suicide in our communities. In the words of Nieves Murray, CEO of Suicide Prevention Australia: 'We believe that through collaborative effort and shared purpose we can achieve our shared vision of a world without suicide.'
I urge anybody who is listening to this that needs some support tonight to make sure they contact one of our many excellent help services and helplines to seek those support services.
Homelessness
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (21:59): The homelessness crisis in Tasmania continues to worsen under the Hodgman and Morrison Liberal governments. The state government has failed to address the crisis adequately, and Tasmanians have been shivering through the winter. There are 3,300 people waiting on the public housing register. The Hodgman government either is out of ideas or simply doesn't care about the Tasmanians who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstance of being homeless.
Like most Liberal governments, this Hodgman government has an abhorrent 'nothing to see here' attitude. Mr Hodgman is, of course, known for being the good news premier. He doesn't like challenges or problems; he just wants good news above all else. Then we have the Minister for Housing, Roger Jaensch, who is not only inept but completely incompetent. He doesn't have the capacity to address this problem, let alone solve it. The minister is not up to the job. You just have to look at the worsening of the crisis to see that.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): Senator Colbeck on a point of order?
Senator Colbeck: It is one of the courtesies that we pay in this place to refer to colleagues in this place and other places by their correct name. If Senator Polley would like to pronounce Minister Jaensch's name properly, it would be appreciated.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will just ask Senator Polley to take note of that. Thank you.
Senator POLLEY: The minister is not up to the job. You just have to look at the worsening of the crisis to see that. If there were an award for ministerial incompetence, Mr Jaensch would get first-class honours. Melissa Price would be a very close second. You just have to watch question time in the House of Assembly to see Mr Jaensch struggle to answer a simple question. Frankly, it is almost painful to watch him try to answer a question.
Homelessness is on the rise, and it's affecting not just my home state of Tasmania but other states as well. To put this issue into context, I want to list some of the very frightening statistics regarding this issue. It's estimated that there are over 116,450 Australians who are homeless and needlessly suffering tonight, and over 50,000 Australians will literally sleep on the streets this year. There's not enough shelter in Australia, and governments of all persuasions have ignored the basic human right of having a warm, safe place to live. Over the last few years, there's been an increase of 20.4 per cent in the number of people sleeping on the streets across Australia. Women aged over 55 are the fastest-growing group of homeless Australians. One in 201 Australians are currently homeless. In 2017-18, 44,116 people requesting short-term emergency accommodation did not receive any accommodation or were given only a referral. In 2017-18, 99,370 people needed long-term accommodation but did not receive any or were given only a referral. Nearly 60,000 of the homeless people are aged under 35 years. In 2018, two homeless men were tragically run over and killed by garbage trucks—one while sleeping in a Brisbane city laneway and another while sleeping in Sydney.
There are factors that contribute to being homeless. These include relationship breakdowns, financial hardship, mental health issues, or losing a job or a loved one. One or a combination of these factors can lead to someone becoming homeless. Sometimes homelessness can occur due to someone moving to a new area, losing their job and not having any support to help them. At other times, it could be something as simple as not being able to afford housing. Homelessness can affect anyone at any time. The tiniest life changes can cause someone to lose everything they have in the blink of an eye. It's a terrible place for anyone to be in, as you never know what will happen to you on the streets. Whatever the reason for their homelessness, Australians sleeping on our streets need immediate shelter to survive.
Accommodation is not the only need of families who experience homelessness. Aside from the obvious needs, such as employment, counselling and material aid, many families have a need for stability and support. Wherever possible, it's important to help those who find themselves experiencing homelessness to establish support networks within the local community and to put down roots. To fully address the issue of homelessness and to help create long-term stability, individuals must receive care that ranges from early intervention to crisis accommodation, medium-term care and a range of support and rehabilitation services. We need to do everything we can to keep children in the same schools and to help those families with their journeys.
I'm of the view that Australia needs to create a national leasing scheme for our homeless and perhaps consider the use of vacant office blocks and disused government infrastructure by converting those into social housing, as the Finnish and other European countries have accomplished. The placing of transportable units on vacant land and reforming tenancy laws would also work towards solving this easily repairable crisis. There are solutions, and this government has failed to find any of them. In particular, something that gets lost in this debate is the demographics of homelessness. Many women are the hidden homeless, often never seen, as they're in secret refuges, concealed in emergency shelters, couch-crashing in a friend's lounge room or seeking day-to-day shelter in cheap hotel rooms, caravan parks or even in their cars. These women are desperate to avoid sleeping on unprotected streets, where violence and the threat of violence is common.
Fearing for your very life on the street is perhaps one of the scariest circumstances any person could find themselves in. According to figures released by Homelessness Australia, domestic and family violence is the No. 1 reason that women seek specialist homeless services, with as many as 55 per cent of women highlighting domestic violence as their reason. For women who escape from this violence, the journey is only the beginning of a terrible nosedive into homelessness. Many realise that their desperate escape will only force them into financial chaos as well. Due to gender based workplace inequality, women on the whole earn less than men. They find it difficult to re-enter the workforce after having children and are reliant on part-time wages and parent payments to make ends meet. Seventy-five per cent of part-time workers are women. These are most certainly precursors for our homeless women.
I call on both the Hodgman government and the Morrison government to get their acts together and start feeling something not only for the Tasmanian homeless but also for the homeless across our country. The reality is that people are living on the streets, in cars or, if they're lucky, crashing on a couch. The indignity, the insecurity and the effect of homelessness on an individual should not be underestimated. The government can do better. We must do better. We can't afford to wait till a change in government, as this action is so is so desperately needed now. It's not just a political issue; it's one where we, as a rich country, should ensure that everyone has a safe place to sleep at night and a safe place for them to raise their families.
Howard, Hon. John Winston, OM, AC
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (22:08): I'm pleased to rise this evening to speak about former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, OM, AC, who celebrated his 80th birthday in July. Sound economic management, gun reform and stability are three things synonymous with John Howard's tenure as Prime Minister. In my opening remarks I want to dissect a virtue of John Howard's which I believe greatly assisted him in becoming one of Australia's finest prime ministers. It is a virtue I also believe is too often understated but is a very necessary ingredient for political success—that, of course, is tenacity.
Tuesday 9 May 1989 is not a date that springs to mind when you think of major historical events. However, it is one which is significant in Australian political history, if one which is glossed over. It's the date that John Howard lost the leadership of the Liberal Party to Andrew Peacock. Following problems which plagued the Liberal Party during the 1980s, such as the threat to break up the coalition, the 'Joh for Canberra' campaign and the everlasting leadership tensions between Andrew Peacock and Mr Howard, Mr Peacock moved a spill motion and Mr Howard declared the position vacant. Andrew Peacock won the ballot 44 votes to 27, thus returning to the leadership of the Liberal Party and the opposition. It was one of the largest margins in Liberal Party history.
In the meantime, in the lead-up to that leadership damage, John Howard did not have an easy run during his first stint as leader. However, after he lost the leadership to his arch rival and then deputy, Andrew Peacock, Mr Howard reflected and set on a path to enact change within himself while not losing hope of his ultimate goal to one day be Prime Minister of the country he loved so much.
After the coalition lost the 1990 federal election, Andrew Peacock resigned as leader, ending his long-held leadership ambitions. John Hewson was then elected Liberal Party leader, a position he held for over four years, including while taking the coalition to a record fifth consecutive election loss. After the 1993 election loss, John Howard contested the leadership. John Hewson prevailed by 47 votes to 30. This left Mr Howard completely deflated. Just a year later John Hewson had lost the support of his colleagues, and the party room elected what at the time was referred to by Laurie Oakes on Channel Nine's Sunday program as the 'dream team', with Alexander Downer and Peter Costello elected leader and deputy leader respectively. This was viewed as generational change of the Liberal leadership by many across our country.
By this point, two federal elections had occurred since John Howard lost the leadership. After four years and the three different leaders since Mr Howard's leadership loss in 1989, his personal fortunes looked illusory. A few days prior to the new 'dream team' leadership ticket being elected, Mr Howard wrote in his diary: 'I was given my last ever chance to reclaim the leadership of the Liberal Party and again seek the prime ministership of my country. I didn't know it at the time and I passed up the opportunity. It will never come again. I think I now feel that.' Although appearing improbable, Mr Howard's dream was still alight inside. The new Liberal leadership team started strongly and gave Liberal supporters across the country a real sense of optimism of the Liberals being elected for the first time in a long time. However, as time went on and Alexander Downer's leadership began to fragment, on 30 June 1995, after nearly six years, two elections and three different leaders since John Howard's first stint, Mr Howard returned as leader of the Liberal Party and the coalition. John Howard remarked in his autobiography that Alexander Downer was 'impeccable'. Mr Howard and Mr Downer's relationship strengthened and continued during the 11½ years of the Howard government.
The mere feat of Mr Howard returning as Liberal leader would not have happened if he had given up his long-held dream of being Prime Minister of Australia. That's tenacity. During Mr Howard's 33-year political career, he was steadfastly tenacious. He was tenacious when he lost as the Liberal candidate for the state seat of Drummoyne in the 1967 New South Wales election. He was tenacious when he rose as Treasurer in the Fraser government in 1977. He was tenacious when he lost his first leadership ballot to Andrew Peacock in 1983. He was tenacious through a turbulent time in opposition for over a decade. John Howard was tenacious in government.
Net government debt was $94.8 billion when the Howard government was elected in March 1996. When the Howard government left office in November 2007, it was zero, zilch. The average real wage growth of the Hawke-Keating government was minus 1.8 per cent compared to the Howard government's years of 21.5 per cent. Mr Howard inherited an unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent, and it was just 4.2 per cent when the coalition left office. The Howard government's credit rating was twice upgraded to AAA status, while the previous Labor government's credit rating was downgraded twice to AA. The tax burden was 22.3 per cent of GDP when Labor left office in 1996, and that was reduced to 20.7 per cent when the Howard government left office.
The Howard legacy is obvious—11½ years of diligent and responsible economic management. John Howard was tenacious while leading a government that needed to make tough decisions and tighten the belt. It is Mr Howard's tenacity which not only ensured Australia had great economic prosperity for the period he was in office but also helped set up Australia for the 21st century. Mr Howard's tenacity delivered other things: gun reform, implementation of the GST, the resumed diplomatic relationship with North Korea, maintenance of Australia's high level of security during a new era of world terrorism and, of course, the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. One could stand and recount countless examples of where Mr Howard's tenacity not only helped to make Australia a better country but also led to his prime ministership becoming the benchmark for political leadership and good government in this country.
At a time when a lot is said about leadership, when a lot is said about character, I think it's time that we rewarded that virtue: tenacity. Mr Howard celebrated his 80th birthday on 26 July. I'm sure many senators and members extend our best wishes to him. I'd like to use this opportunity this evening to applaud his work and his virtue: tenacity.
Senate adjourned at 22:16