The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
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:
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—private briefing on Thursday, 12 September 2019, from 9.50 am.
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—private briefing today, from 9.30 am.
The PRESIDENT ( 09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on either of those at the request of any senator.
BILLS
National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019
National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(a) recognises that all people have fundamental human rights and are entitled to equal protection of the law without any discrimination, including on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status; and
(b) calls on the National Sports Tribunal, when established, to:
(i) consult with intersex-led organisations, and with transgender and gender diverse organisations;
(ii) adopt policies that reflect the 2016 guidance by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the Darlington Statement 2017; and
(iii) ensure access to sport at all levels of competition by all intersex persons, including all cisgender intersex women being permitted to compete as women, without restrictions or discriminatory medical investigations."
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (09:31): As I was saying last night, I send my best wishes to the Collingwood Football Club as they make their way to the 2019 AFL grand final. Senator Van has just left the chamber. I am sure he would join me in wishing the Magpies all the very best.
I'd like to highlight a few findings of the Intergenerational review of Australian sport 2017. That review found that over 90 per cent of Australian adults have an interest in sport, with 8.4 million adults and three million children participating in sport each year. It also found that, in any 12-month period, nearly eight million Australians will attend a live sport event. Our love for friendly competition has naturally led Australia to having an exceptional track record of success in high-performance sport. There is no doubting that we have a long tradition of punching above our weight at the elite international level. On that note, let me put on the record my congratulations to the Australian cricket team, who defeated the English in the fourth test at Old Trafford over the weekend.
Senator Colbeck: Hear, hear!
Senator CICCONE: Thank you, Minister. A grateful nation owes much to our mighty XI—and Steve Smith's trusty willow—who have managed to secure the Ashes in England for the first time since Steve Waugh captained the squad back in 2001.
The Intergenerational review of Australian sport didn't just analyse sport participation; it also reported on sport's economic contribution and concluded that it was equivalent to around two to three per cent of GDP. The sector employs more than 220,000 people and attracts roughly 1.8 million volunteers each year, making it Australia's largest volunteer destination. On Monday night here at Parliament House, at Surf Life Saving Australia's quarterly update, President Graham Ford reminded us and all the distinguished guests who were in attendance that surf lifesaving is the biggest volunteer activity in Australia. What a great example it is of something that is enjoyed as a sport and recreational activity also providing an invaluable contribution to our rich history.
The Intergenerational review of Australian sport also confirmed what we all know: that sport can make a major contribution not just to our health but also to our wellbeing. It found that participation by children created foundations for an active, healthy lifestyle, combating obesity and physical inactivity. It also found that sport improves outcomes in core academic fields, promotes knowledge retention and teaches valuable life skills. It found that the network of clubs and competitions brings people together like few sectors can. It is a rich source of social capital and our international success builds national pride and reinforces Australia's international reputation for excellence in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Together, these benefits result in every dollar spent in sport returning $7 of total benefits to Australia.
It's important to highlight again the valuable role that sport plays in our society. The reason for highlighting sport's value is to explain why the integrity of sport is worth protecting. Every time we hear or read a story about doping or match fixing in sport, it damages sport's reputation and devalues it. Thankfully, while there will always be exceptions, Australia has been proactive in deploying measures to protect against these and other threats to the integrity of sport here in Australia. As Senator Farrell mentioned the other night, the threats evolve, and that means that protective measures must also evolve. The National Sports Tribunal is just one part of a suite of measures that will form the government's response to the 52 recommendations of the Wood review. To paraphrase, the review states that, while larger sports have in-house tribunals staffed with experienced lawyers and experts with backgrounds in sports matters, many smaller sports just don't have the resources or capacity to run this sort of in-house integrity unit or dispute resolution body. The National Sports Tribunal, as proposed in the Wood review recommendations and in these bills, would provide those sports with a timely and cost-effective resolution process. The tribunal would provide an expert central hearing body that can supplement the work of current sports internal dispute resolution arrangements and would provide a forum for the smaller sports that just don't have the resources to run their own.
These bills seek to establish a tribunal that will have access to a panel of experts who are experienced in sports law or have backgrounds that qualify them, through practical experience, to determine sporting issues. There are three divisions proposed: antidoping, general and appeals. According to the review report, the model proposed for the tribunal is based on experience of dispute resolution mechanisms in other countries, such as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, with modifications that the review panel considered appropriate for Australia. Advantages of the model include the conferral of powers to compel evidence from third parties, who may not be subject to contractual obligations to cooperate with inquiries or hearings. That could be an important power if we continue to hear about the so-called facilitators in sports doping cases. As I mentioned last night, there is a need for measures to strengthen Australia's sport integrity arrangements. That is something Labor has recognised and will support the government on. The establishment of the National Sports Tribunal through these bills is one step forward to also strengthening Australia's defences to any and all threats to the integrity of our sports. Can I also add that, as Senator Farrell pointed out in his speech the other day, Labor will continue to work with the government on the responses that put these recommendations together as part of the Wood review. We also look forward to working with the government on this matter in the near future.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I just remind senators that we don't reflect on whether senators are inside or outside the chamber. I know you did not do it with any intent. It is just a custom we have.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (09:38): Sport is at the heart of Australian culture, whether it is football in the dust bowl at the back of Moree or in the state-of-the-art facilities in Sydney, and Australians have absolutely no tolerance for corruption in sport. In August 2017, this government commissioned a review of Australian sports integrity arrangements. The Wood review was published a year later and showed us that sports integrity requires ongoing vigilance, and it outlined the need for the National Sports Tribunal. The Wood review is the most comprehensive review of sports integrity arrangements ever conducted in Australia. It's clear that we need a body to address antidoping and general disputes. The National Sports Tribunal will offer a cost-effective, transparent, timely and independent dispute resolution process for athletes and sporting bodies. It will hear antidoping matters, in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and other sports related disputes, such as player selection and sports code-of-conduct matters.
We know that Australian sport needs to be protected from an evolving and increasingly sophisticated threat environment. This government is working to ensure that Australian sport, sport participants and the economic health and cultural and social benefits of sport to the Australian community are effectively protected. We are committed to supporting sport in Australia, from grassroots to elite; increasing participation in physical and recreational activities to promote physical and mental health; staging major world-class sporting events; and utilising sport as a vehicle to address disadvantage and social inclusion challenges.
In our budget, we're investing a further $385.6 million over five years in sport and recreation. This includes the extension of the Sporting Schools program, with $41 million for the 2020 school year to continue supporting schools partnering with national sporting organisations to deliver free sporting activities. This program helps children develop a lifelong love of sport and connect them with local sporting clubs. It benefits students all over our nation, including where my nephews went to school, Spring Hill Public School, where the level of fitness, team building and increased confidence through experiencing a variety of sports has been incredible. The Sporting Schools program allows schools to give their students access to physical education without increasing the financial burden on families. It gives students the confidence and capability to be active for life.
Our budget commitment also covers the Promoting Social Inclusion through Sport program, with $23.6 million over four years. This includes $19.6 million to local community organisations for diversity and inclusion programs delivered through sport and physical activity, announced as part of the population plan, and $4 million over four years from 2019-20 to expand and extend the government's investment in the Big Issue Community Street Soccer. We're also funding the Special Olympics Australia unified community sport program, with $1.4 million over two years from 2019-20 to improve health and physical activity outcomes for young people with an intellectual disability, and the Get Skilled Access disability and inclusion sport program, with $2 million in 2019-20 to provide support to schools and community clubs.
We're also funding grassroots tennis for girls, with $12 million over four years to Tennis Australia for the Community to the World Stage program, providing support pathways and inspiration to increase female participation generally in the sport of tennis and programs for girls. I love tennis, but I never played at Josh Frydenberg's level and my results could best be described as sporadically brilliant.
We also allocated $42.5 million in 2018-19 to expand the competitive community sport infrastructure grants program to run small- to medium-scale projects, bringing the total investment in the Community Sport Infrastructure program in 2018-19 to $102.5 million. Based on the government's existing industry growth centre model, we've allocated over $500,000 over two years from 2018-19 to develop the Sports Industry Growth Plan, and $2.5 million over five years to support the Sport Australia Hall of Fame mentoring program.
We're also investing $33 million over two years to safeguard the integrity of sport. We're introducing these vital reforms in response to the Wood review. On the whole, the Australian sporting community is law abiding and clean, but in this increasingly global environment we need to be ahead of the threats to keep Australian sport fair. We need to constantly evolve to protect our investment in sport. Global sports corruption and manipulation is evolving at an alarming rate, and Australia must have a comprehensive approach to tackling the threat. This is why the government is funding the National Sports Tribunal as a two-year pilot, allowing for the refinement of its operations. By establishing this tribunal, we're ensuring the community has access to a cost-effective, transparent and effective dispute resolution process. The National Sports Tribunal will be integrated into the current sporting tribunal landscape, complementing the activities of internal sport facilities presently in place and providing a timely and cost-effective alternative to the Court of Arbitration for Sport based in Switzerland.
One significant change from the previous version of the bills package is that the National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 seeks to amend the Freedom of Information Act to exempt material from release where it's covered by the secrecy provisions of the National Sports Tribunal. This proposed amendment is necessary to ensure that parties to a dispute before the National Sports Tribunal have the appropriate guarantees around the protection of their 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 or provide required information. Establishing the National Sports Tribunal is just another way we can support our athletes and provide more opportunities for Australians to be active.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (09:45): Firstly, I thank colleagues for their contribution to the debate on this very important piece of legislation. It demonstrates the passion which Australians hold for sport within our culture. In fact, it's probably notable that when Google came to Australia recently with its arts and culture exercise, which was launched in Melbourne, Australia was the first country in the world to have its sporting culture mapped as a part of that process and as a part of the global platform which is Google's arts and culture catalogue. It's the only nation that has had its sporting culture mapped. It has been designated 'Australia: Great Sporting Land', and I think that says something about Australia and how closely we hold our sporting culture, and that we are such a proud sporting nation.
I would also like to add my comments of congratulation to the Australian cricket team, which Senator Ciccone just made a note of previously, and, with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I note that I'm the first sports minister since Rod Kemp in 2001 to have achieved the winning of the Ashes on foreign soil. It was a great sporting achievement in the brilliant cricket contest that is being conducted in the UK at the moment. It has been a brilliant sporting contest which I know has not only attracted a lot of attention from but also gives a lot of enjoyment to the Australian sporting public and, I suspect, sports lovers all around the world. It has been a great contest.
We have a well-earned reputation of competing hard but competing fair. However, inevitably from time to time, sports disciplinary matters arise that require resolution through a formal process. When this happens, it's important that there are cost-effective, transparent and consistent processes for resolution. Australia's current sports dispute resolution mechanisms lag behind those of many similar countries such as the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Japan. They are inconsistent, subject to accusations of bias and lack powers to get to the truth, and that, I think, is a really important point. They can be costly for participants and can take excessive time to be resolved, particularly when matters have to be resolved in overseas jurisdictions.
The new National Sports Tribunal will eliminate these problems. As identified by the earlier version of this legislation introduced prior to the election, the government will pilot the National Sports Tribunal over two years to ensure it works at its very best, giving sports and participants access to clearer, faster transparent and cost-effective resolution of antidoping rule violations and other sports related disputes. I know many sports have been calling for such a tribunal, and the government, through the Wood review and this process, has listened and is delivering.
I will just make some brief comments with respect to the amendment of Senator Rice and the Greens which has been proposed during the debate. The government recognises that all people have fundamental human rights and are entitled to equal protection of the law without any discrimination, so we agree with the Greens' sentiments in the first paragraph of their proposed amendment. However, in relation to paragraph (b), the amendment does not relate to the actual operation of the tribunal.
The Sports Tribunal will exercise power of private arbitration, which is empowered by the agreement of the parties to resolve disputes that arise under the specific rules of an individual sporting body. All relevant parties to the dispute will be consulted prior to the commencement of any matter, and it is not anticipated that the National Sports Tribunal will develop or adopt policies regarding any substantive issues. Rather, the tribunal will on each and every occasion apply its rules of practice and procedure to disputes arising under specific policies and rules of a sporting body, which will vary between individual sports.
It's intended that the National Sports Tribunal will, through the appointment of tribunal members with a wide range of relevant skills and experience and through the statutory ability to inform itself, including through the engagement of expert witnesses, have the capability to deal with a broad range of matters. Therefore, the government will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Rice. I thank members for their contribution to the debate and commend the bills to the Senate.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Third Reading
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (09:51): No amendments to the bills have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I call the minister to move the third reading.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (09:51): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (09:52): I rise to deliver a contribution from the opposition on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. This bill has obviously attracted a great deal of media attention since the government first flagged it some time ago.
At the outset I want to put down some basic principles that have guided Labor's position on this bill. In one respect this bill deals with some competing tensions about rights within our community. On the one hand, Labor has always had a fine tradition of upholding the right to protest about political, philosophical and ideological matters. I point anyone who is interested in this to look at the legacy of previous Labor governments, state and federal, in ensuring that people do have a legitimate right to protest, particularly over civil rights matters. However, there is another right that is at play in the context of this bill, and that is the right of people involved in the agriculture industry, whether it be farmers, meatworkers or others, to go about their lawful business without illegal interruption by extremist protesters. So let there be no doubt that Labor respects and supports the right to protest but it does not support the extremist protesters who have repeatedly now—to use their words—invaded agricultural properties and other businesses involved in the agriculture sector in an illegal fashion, putting lives in danger.
I can already hear mutterings from Senator McKim, a supporter of extremist protesting. I'm interested to hear his and the Greens' contribution on this debate, to hear whether they have any respect whatsoever for the lives and businesses of people involved in the agriculture industry who have, quite literally, been threatened by some of these extremist protesters. I have no qualms whatsoever about saying that I support the right to protest on political matters. It is something I have done personally over many decades and continue to do. But what I don't do is threaten the lives and businesses of people who are going about their lawful business, and that is what we are seeing from some extremist protester elements. Senator McKim and his colleagues may wish to reflect on that as they are making up their mind about which way they will land on this bill.
As I said, our starting position is that Labor acknowledge that farmers and those in agricultural businesses should not be subjected to intimidating and unlawful actions by extreme activists trespassing on their land and that, if there are gaps in the criminal law that permit such behaviour to go unpunished, it is appropriate for the government to ensure legislation fills those gaps. That is why Labor supported the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives and that is why we are supporting the passage of this bill here today.
However, from the time this bill was rushed into the parliament—and let's be honest, the genesis of this bill was another political stunt from this government—without consultation or the proper time needed for careful drafting, concerns have been raised that this bill, like so much that this government does, is a kind of virtue-signalling which doesn't take account of legitimate concerns about where this bill might go and unintended consequences that might arise, rather than being a serious attempt to protect farmers. Repeated failures in lawmaking by this government have demonstrated that the power to make laws for our nation, which is a power entrusted to the federal government by the Australian people, is a power that should be exercised with great care.
Instead, as the many potentially significant unintended consequences of this sloppily drafted law show, the Morrison government continues to see its power to make laws for our nation as a marketing opportunity simply to build the Liberal Party and National Party brands. This is concerning in the case of criminal laws because of the severe impact that such laws can have on individuals that fall foul of them. But let me say that we will be supporting this bill because Labor are prepared to support laws to better protect farmers and others involved in the agriculture sector from unlawful protests by extremist protesters on their land and on their premises. Again, if anyone has any doubt about the seriousness of the events that have been going on and the need to take action, you need only talk to some of the farm businesses who have been the subject of this illegal form of extremist protesting. We're not talking about genuine civil disobedience—
Senator McKim: Yes, you are.
Senator Faruqi: Yes, you are.
Senator WATT: I'll take the interjection from the Greens. The extremist Greens, by saying that we are talking about genuine protesting, are defending the threats to people's lives, which have actually occurred, from these extremist protesters. You really should question whether you want to align yourselves with people who are making death threats and other threats to destroy the livelihoods of people around the country. I understand that the Greens also support civil disobedience—I have no issue with that; Labor supports civil disobedience—but I will not have any truck with people who issue death threats against farming families, against children, and against businesses. Labor is not up for that. We will not support that kind of protesting. If the Greens want to stand side by side with extremist protesters who issue death threats, who issue threats against children, who publicise the street addresses, premises and locations of families and children, and encourage people to take action against those individuals, well, that's a matter for the Greens. But that is not something that Labor supports—while we do of course support the right to legitimate civil disobedience and protest.
This bill has now been examined by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The evidence given to that committee from 86 submitters highlighted a range of very significant problems with this bill as currently drafted. The government members of this committee then basically ignored every concern raised and recommended that this bill be passed without a single amendment.
Labor members of the committee took a more responsible approach to the task of legislative review that was entrusted to them and a more respectful approach to the people and organisations who took the time to analyse this bill and provide evidence to the committee about what they found. The fact that they were effectively doing the work of the Morrison government for it by closely examining a bill before it became law didn't seem to make any difference.
At the outset, the Labor members of the committee agreed with the claimed purpose of this legislation, which is to protect Australian farmers and primary production businesses from those who incite trespass or other property offences on agricultural land. Of course we acknowledge that the food and fibre industries add significant value to the economy and contribute to the health and wellbeing of Australians. I take this opportunity to again make clear that Labor believes that Australians operating these businesses have a right to do so in peace and that there is no place for actions, no matter the cause, that endanger or threaten workers, create biosecurity risks or intimidate farmers on their own property. That is what this bill is trying to do.
This bill is not about restricting people's genuine right to undertake civil disobedience. This is a bill that is designed to prevent extremist protesters from endangering or threatening workers, creating biosecurity risks and intimidating farmers on their own property. However, I note that Labor members of the committee recommend that this bill be substantially amended to deal with the numerous significant unintended consequences that have been identified by submitters and outlined in the report.
Labor's concern about the bill in its current form is that the poor drafting has created the risk of a range of unintended consequences. These were addressed in evidence to the committee and include: overlap with existing state and territory laws; a lack of proportionality in comparison to existing offences; impacts on the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication; impacts on public interest journalism; impacts on whistleblowers; impacts on farmers involved in legitimate rural protests; and, finally, impacts on legitimate industrial activities by workers and unions. For that reason, I foreshadow that Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this bill.
Supporters of this bill argue that legislative action by the Commonwealth parliament is needed to fill gaps in state and territory legislation and a perceived lack of action by state authorities. However, the Attorney-General's Department has identified 31 laws that already deal with trespass, property damage and relevant incitement offences in state and territory laws. The offences created by this bill appear to substantially overlap with existing state and territory laws that already criminalise trespass, damage to property and theft and could already form the basis of criminal liability for those who incite those offences. To this extent, the bill may therefore do little but complicate the law with superfluous additional offences that will not improve existing legal protections for farmers.
It is also important to note that the government has already taken a significant and targeted action against Aussie Farms, one of the main protest groups, by listing it as a prescribed organisation under the Privacy Act 1988. According to the Attorney-General, this exposes Aussie Farms to potential penalties of up to $2.1 million if it is found to breach the Privacy Act.
Let me now turn to the unintended consequences that this bill may have. Australia has a robust democracy founded on freedom of political communication. We, in Labor, believe in defending the right of our citizens to conduct protests, and that includes the right of farmers to protest. No laws should unduly restrict those basic rights shared by all Australians.
The Law Council and some other witnesses before the committee raised concerns that the bill may impinge upon the implied freedom of political communication, because conduct captured by the proposed offences 'may overreach what is necessary for the effective operation of a system of representative and responsible government'. This concern is linked to the concern that whistleblowers and public interest journalism are not adequately protected by the bill, which could lead a court to strike the bill down as unconstitutional.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutiny report also raised a number of concerns about the impact of the bill on human rights and the adequacy of the safeguards it purports to provide.
From the outset, Labor has also been concerned by evidence that this bill may have the effect of criminalising the actions of whistleblowers and journalists who are seeking to expose and prevent illegal cruelty to animals. Evidence to the committee from numerous submitters, including the Law Council of Australia and Australia's Right to Know, was that, as presently drafted, the protections in this bill are inadequate to protect public interest journalism. Once again, these problems could be fixed with fairly simple amendments, consistent with protections for journalists and whistleblowers in other laws, but the Morrison government has chosen to ignore this reality and to place Liberal Party marketing objectives before press freedom and the basic rights of all Australians, including their right to know.
While the government continues to claim that the bill will provide adequate protection for journalists and whistleblowers, over recent months Australians have seen the Morrison government's lack of respect for the public's right to know about unlawful activities and its willingness to use the criminal law and the police to seek to intimidate independent journalists and whistleblowers who seek to expose wrongdoing.
We in Labor are concerned to ensure that this bill will not add to the threats to journalists who are trying to do their job in the public interest, and we will be moving an amendment to ensure that journalists and whistleblowers will be fully protected.
Another possible unintended consequence of this bill is that its poorly drafted provisions could also be directed against farmers, the very people it is said this bill will protect. Labor members of the committee pointed out that protests on agricultural land are not only carried out by animal rights activists. In recent years there have been many cases of protests and other activist activities, including trespass, on agricultural land by people involved in rural groups such as the Lock the Gate Alliance and those involved in water pipeline protests in Victoria's Yarra Valley. While the government claims that the bill is aimed at animal rights protesters, it is clear that the offences in this bill could also be used against farmers engaged in protest actions against mining exploration or other developments on agricultural land. And, as the Prime Minister has recently declared, he is never troubled to see the law enforced.
In their additional comments, Labor members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee concluded:
There may well be a case for stronger laws or penalties in some states, and more rigorous enforcement of existing laws, in order to protect farmers, workers and their families from the harms and potential harms of activist trespass. Labor is not convinced, however, that this bill as currently drafted is the right vehicle to achieve those aims.
They also said:
Labor's long term position has been to support moves to achieve better animal welfare and consistent application and enforcement of animal protection statutes by harmonising relevant federal, state and territory laws and codes. Labor has supported the establishment of an independent office of animal welfare; phasing out cosmetic testing on animals or on products used in the production of cosmetics; and; has opposed any 'ag-gag' legislation.
The Commonwealth parliament is no place for virtue signalling, especially when there are broader consequences. The lack of rigour applied to the drafting and evidence from the relevant departments on this bill has led to concerns that this is a problem looking for a solution.
I commend those comments of the Labor members of the committee.
In conclusion, when this bill was introduced Labor made clear that our concerns are not with the stated purpose of the bill but with the many potential unintended consequences that could flow should this poorly drafted bill become law. For these reasons, Labor did not oppose the bill's passage through the House and said that we would announce our position following consultation with farmers and legal experts and following review of the recommendations of the report on the bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
Labor understands that the vast majority of Australian farmers respect the law and care for the animals that are their livelihood and would agree with us that laws passed to protect farmers from unlawful actions on their land should not have the unintended consequences of criminalising legitimate journalism and whistleblowing on matters of public interest or stifling legitimate protest actions, including those taken by farmers themselves.
If the government really wanted to deal with the problem of protests by Australians against animal cruelty, it would be better off by showing that it is responding to their concerns by trying to better deal with the problem of animal cruelty. As the government majority of the committee itself declared, there is little doubt that activists who trespass to collect footage or release farm animals do so because they are motivated by a genuine personal commitment to animal welfare. However, Labor is prepared to support laws to better protect farmers from unlawful extremist protest activities on their land, and for that reason we will be supporting this bill.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (10:10): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, which should really be called the 'ag gag bill'. Let's have no doubt that this is nothing but an 'ag gag bill'. The Greens will be opposing this bill because it is a terrible and unnecessary piece of legislation. You lot seem to have completely missed the fact that almost every state and territory already has trespass and incitement laws. On first reading, you can tell that this bill is just the government's embarrassing and poorly thought-out kneejerk reaction to a handful of incidents. But it's actually much worse than that. This is an antiprotest bill dressed up as protection. It takes us further down the road of a police state. It's just the latest bill in the long line of legislation aimed at protecting big agribusiness and corporations from scrutiny and transparency. It is designed to stop the public from using their democratic right to protest.
The ramifications of passing the bill are significant. It would apply to huge swathes of Australia. It would limit the right to protest and take nonviolent direct action, not only for animal protection but in the fight against climate-destroying coalmines and coal seam gas on agricultural land. Why else would this bill be so incredibly broad in its inclusion of any agricultural land? It includes any land, like fruit and vegetable farms or private native forestry. If this were about the so-called vegan activists, why would it include non-animal agricultural land? Anyone who thinks that this bill is about mum-and-dad farms has had the wool pulled over their eyes. This is a completely illiberal response which is inconsistent with the Australian public's right to free speech, freedom of information and freedom of the press. As such, it has significant implications for animals, consumers, the media and all members of the public.
I want to underscore that this bill is an attack not just on animal activists as foreshadowed by the minister but on all activism and on all rights to protest. It is a law that will apply to at least half, and probably more, of the vast land of our country. It will be applied equally to any activist group suppressing their democratic right to stand up, speak out and protest. Just think about all the coalmines and the coal seam gas operations located on agricultural land. Even when people protest to protect farmers who want to lock the gate on coal seam gas mining, they will be caught up in this. That's how much you care about mum-and-dad farmers.
This bill is also an attack on the media. It puts an extra burden on journalists, who will have to prove that their work is in the public interest or else risk being exposed to the serious penalties in this bill—up to five years in jail. This bill is the continued slow march to a police state. This bill is the antithesis of democracy. As my colleague Senator McKim has put it in this place, it is part of the slow march to fascism.
'Ag gag' legislation serves only to shield the commercial interests of intensive farming operations and stifle transparency about the standard practices on many factory farms. I say to the government that the world is changing. You are on the wrong side of history, and so is the Labor opposition. After Senator Watt put together a long list of all the problems with this bill, they're still going to vote for it. Animal welfare issues are now front and centre for the people of Australia. The government should be in the business of helping to improve animal welfare outcomes by working with industry to introduce better standards, not trying to avoid scrutiny and criminalising those who expose animal mistreatment. In the absence of any serious monitoring of animal welfare in factory farms by the government, animal activists have had to fill the void.
At the core of the government's confusion—and it is partly confusion—is their unwillingness to admit that there is a huge problem with animal welfare in this country. I simply could not believe the audacity of the agriculture minister, Bridget McKenzie, when she told ABC's Country Hour recently, 'We have a raft of measures in place to ensure animal welfare standards of the highest order in this country.' Senator, you're either dreaming or you're being wilfully ignorant. I was even more shocked when I tuned in to the Senate inquiry into this bill and the hearing with Mr Christopher Delforce of Aussie Farms. I was shocked by how ignorant coalition senators are of the reality of farmed agriculture. Senator McMahon insisted that livestock was not exempt from animal cruelty laws. But we know many model codes of practice exempt livestock. In my home state of New South Wales, to give just one example, livestock is exempted from the requirement to provide exercise to a confined animal—a provision which enables cruel battery cages and sow stalls.
As a country, we should be ashamed of what we allow to go on in animal agriculture. Of course many farms don't use these cruel practices but many still do, especially industrial factory farms. As a country, we allow procedures and practices that would never be allowed to be carried out on your family cat or dog without pain relief, such as dehorning and castration of cattle, debeaking of chickens, cutting the teeth of piglets and mulesing sheep. Someone can literally lock up chickens in cages for their whole lives and raise ducks who never see water. They can keep pigs in pens so small that the pigs can't even turn around. All of this is legal. It is not just me who thinks that our laws are inadequate and must change. The government commissioned a report called Australia's shifting mindset on farm animal welfare, conducted by Futureye, and the results were pretty amazing. Just 10 per cent of people think that our animal welfare standards are adequate. The other 90 per cent want to see change. More than 70 per cent of people think that farm animal welfare is a moderate or a serious issue, and more than 90 per cent of people think that cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and chickens are sentient or somewhat sentient. Yet, the laws allow them to be subjected to abuse and mistreatment.
You are in denial if you think that there isn't an animal welfare crisis. Even inadequate animal cruelty laws are rarely enforced. We should be passing national animal cruelty laws that protect all animals, including farm animals, not the government's nonsense that we are debating today. We should be introducing mandatory CCTV in abattoirs, and banning battery cages and sow stalls, yet here we are. The laws that you are pushing through today are completely unnecessary and they are completely disproportionate—unnecessary because trespass and incitement are already offences and disproportionate because you would criminalise people who are concerned about animal welfare much more than a person committing the most violent and cruel abuse of animals. Imagine the most heinous, horrible and cruel things that someone could do to an animal, where an animal is killed or seriously injured by that cruelty. The absolute maximum prison term that monster would get in my home state of New South Wales is two years, but in this bill the government is saying that someone who puts up a Facebook event or sends a text message about potentially going onto agricultural land to rescue an animal from abuse could be sentenced to up to five years—much longer than the person who actually commits aggravated cruelty. What a horrible distortion of justice! If someone became aware of an animal suffering horrifically from cruelty and neglect and took action to rescue that animal, they would be penalised more than the person who committed the cruelty. How can that possibly be justified?
Daniel Brighton was recently jailed for stabbing a dog with a pitchfork at least six times, hanging it from a tree for 45 minutes and bashing it with a mallet about eight times. He then put the animal in a plastic bag and told an employee to dump it. The maximum penalties in this bill for trying to expose animal cruelty are 1½ times more than what this person got for extreme cruelty.
Don't give me this rubbish that animal welfare isn't in the federal government purview. Our advice clearly states that the Commonwealth has the power to create laws that can protect animals and agriculture. Currently, in most states and territories farm animals can legally be subjected to excruciating and painful procedures and this has to end.
We know that this bill is just part of the agenda of attacking animal welfare organisations. Just recently we saw false and defamatory cash-for-cruelty smears against Animals Australia perpetuated by this government and the Murdoch media. We know that this is happening hand in glove with the New South Wales government. Their new trespass fines, announced under New South Wales Biosecurity Regulation 2017, are an egregious betrayal of biosecurity principles and a politicisation of a very important issue.
When the Biosecurity Bill 2015 passed in New South Wales parliament, I and others pointed out that that was an 'ag gag bill'. At the time, the then Minister for Primary Industries, Niall Blair, said, 'the bill is not about farm trespass, it is not about animal welfare, other than as it relates directly to biosecurity risks, and it is definitely not ag gag legislation.' Yet, two years later the government is breaking its word. What a surprise.
This smear campaign against animal welfare organisations has been going on for some time. When I was in New South Wales parliament, I obtained a document summarising then agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce's comments to a national Farm Trespass Roundtable in 2015. That report did make for some very interesting reading. Joyce said, in reference to animal welfare laws: 'If laws are inadequate, there are open processes through the parliament to seek change to such laws.' This is the minister who oversaw the export of hundreds of Australian greyhounds to be raced to death in Macau and refused to stop it.
This is the minister who abolished the Australian animal welfare advisory committee, the only national forum that brought together industry, welfare groups and government to progress much needed reforms in Australia. He also defunded the Australian animal welfare strategy and the dismantling of the Department of Agriculture's animal welfare unit. It was under him that a national standard for free range eggs was established which set a stocking density seven times higher than the guidelines published by CSIRO in the Model Code of Practice. Is it any wonder, then, that the people don't trust this government when it has such indifference to animal suffering? Barnaby Joyce isn't alone. He and his actions were backed lock, stock, and barrel by this government.
The report goes on to say something even more interesting. It concludes: 'No law or regulatory intervention alone is likely to eliminate farm trespass completely.' It talks about lifting animal welfare standards and transparency, and none of that has transpired.
The summary of the presentation from Scott Hansen, director of the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, went on to the core of this issue and states:
The promotion of high farming standards, with greater openness and transparency surrounding the conditions in which animals are bred and raised, along with a concerted and community directed education and information effort, contribute to the social licence between the community and producers. Such transparency will lessen the incentive to 'reveal' alleged mistreatment by lawful businesses.
This is what this government should be doing.
This bill contains the aggravated offences for inciting someone to damage stock or commit theft. If you were honest and serious about rural crime you would be looking at the biggest issue in farm trespass. You know that the biggest issue is illegal hunting and pig-dogging, yet you don't see any resources or rushed legislation devoted to that issue. Associate Professor Elaine Barclay from the University of New South Wales surveyed more than 3,000 farmers across New South Wales and Queensland. She found incidents of trespassing and unauthorised hunting had doubled. She said the current pig hunting craze had produced offenders who were well equipped with off-road vehicles, GPS systems, and high-powered rifles. She said:
They are responsible for gates left open, damage to fences, crops and vegetation, vandalism, arson, littering, disturbing, stealing or shooting stock, having dogs that attack livestock, and the thefts of fuel, tools and equipment, tyres, lights or GPS equipment from farm machinery.
This is the thing that affects everyday farmers, which is being completely ignored by this government.
The 2016 NSW Stock Theft and Trespass Review conducted by the NSW government found that the main issues raised during consultations with land owners were stock theft, stock identification, rural trespass, especially by pig hunters and goat harvesters, and police response to rural crime incidents. The majority of these illegal hunting incidents involve the hunting of pigs with dogs. Why have you not once mentioned this issue? Because the only reason you have this bill is to go after animal welfare activists.
The simple reality is that the government has let big corporate agribusiness go on with no accountability and no transparency for far too long. Maximising their profits by using and abusing animals. The cruelty in the greyhound racing industry or the live export industry should have been uncovered by government agencies. Better yet, we should have strong laws to protect those animals. But, because this is sadly lacking, those who care for animals and have the courage to expose cruelty are forced to do so. This is why there is a need for a well-resourced independent office of animal welfare separate from primary industries, so that we can monitor, enforce and drive change in animal law and practice in Australia.
Just last month we saw footage released of cruelty to hens at a Victorian poultry farm, uncovered by Animal Liberation. In the vision, one worker pulls on a chicken's head, and is heard saying that it feels good, just after another says, 'I hate it when their heads come off.' Another worker can be seen picking up clucking chickens and banging them against a surface. Another animal is poked with a pole while flapping its wings trying to escape. This is just pure evil. It is sickening. And your response to that cruelty is to say how great our animal welfare laws are while passing these laws that would make criminals of those exposing cruelty. The truth is you just don't want anyone to see this.
Ag gag laws are the wrong response. We should be embracing transparency not closing things up. Ag gag laws passed in the United States are having disturbing impacts on freedom of speech, animal welfare and the reputation of the agricultural industry. Just recently, a federal court judge ruled that Idaho's ag gag laws banning secret filming of animal abuse at agricultural facilities are unconstitutional. Not many years ago, Animal Liberation NSW revealed severe acts of cruelty at the Hawkesbury Valley Meats processor through secretly recorded footage. In response, the NSW Food Authority conducted a full review of domestic slaughterhouses across our state. The meat processors in question eventually elected voluntarily to install surveillance cameras to improve transparency. Some policy progress has been made since then, but we need stronger regulation that is actually enforced. The Greens will not be party to the passing of laws that will silence protestors and jail animal welfare investigators and other activists. People have a right to know how their food is produced. As Will Potter, an American independent journalist and public speaker, says:
The reason that activists are a "threat" isn't that they are breaking windows. It's that they're creating them.
The Greens oppose the bill.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (10:28): It's great to be rising in support of this legislation today, because this legislation is a choice for this parliament and for this Senate about whose side they're on, whether they're on the side of hardworking, law-abiding farmers who are producing food and fibre for our nation or whether they're on the side of the vegan terrorists. The Greens have made it clear they are on the side of the vegan terrorists, as we would expect.
This bill delivers on an election promise made by the Morrison government. I wanted to take a moment, before I get into the detail of the bill, to reflect on that election of which this promise was one part of. At the election, the Australian people were faced with a very clear choice. On one hand they had the Liberal-National government that said to them that, if they got out and had a go, they would get a go and the government would support them.
At the election, the Australian people were faced with a very clear choice. On the one hand they had the Liberal-National government, who said to them that if they got out and had a go they would get a go and the government would support them. It was a choice between a government that was fundamentally on their side and the Labor-Greens opposition dominated by inner-city elites who planned to whack them with nearly $400 billion of additional taxes and whose unrealistic, uncosted renewable energy targets would have smashed manufacturing in this country, smashed agriculture in this country and driven our costs of living through the roof. Of course, the people made a decision to back in a government that would back them, rather than a Labor Party who, with their Greens partners, sneered and thought their hard work and aspiration was something to be punished.
Having received this endorsement, the government are now getting on with the job of delivering upon these commitments we made to the Australian people, and we've been delivering in spades. In just a few short sitting weeks we've delivered on commitments to the Australian people. We've delivered on the tax cuts that we promised in the budget back in April and that we took to the election in May and which we then legislated in July—5½ million Australians have already received the benefits of those tax cuts flowing into the economy. And of course we have seen the challenge for the Labor Party in deciding whose side they're on in dealing with tax cuts. They couldn't make a decision. They were against tax cuts right up until the moment they got through the parliament, where there were enough numbers without the Labor Party, and then they decided they were for the tax cuts.
We see again the Labor Party faced with a choice: whether they are on the side of the vegan terrorists or whether they are on the side of law-abiding farmers. The Greens have made it clear, to their credit, that they are on the side of vegan terrorists. That's very clear from the contributions they've made. We wouldn't expect anything less. The Labor Party seem to be having a bit of an existential crisis on this. They have said they are going to support this bill, and we acknowledge that. We are grateful that they are supporting this bill. But it was very interesting to read in The Australian today that apparently the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, had to make it clear to some of his caucus, perhaps Senator Carr or others, that the Labor Party are actually not the party of vegan terrorists. It's good news. The Labor Party apparently are not a party of vegan terrorists. It doesn't appear to be a clear majority view within the Labor Party. It appears to be something that they are quite conflicted on. Perhaps Senator Carr can tell us whether he is on the side of vegan terrorists and whether his party is the party of vegan terrorists. But it is quite extraordinary. You can imagine in the caucus meeting Mr Albanese saying to his colleagues, 'No, that's really not what we're about; we are not about supporting vegan terrorists,' and others in the faction saying, 'I don't know; I think maybe we should support vegan terrorists.' So the Labor Party are having this existential crisis where they have to decide which side they are on, whether it's on economic issues, whether it's on national security or whether it's on simple, common-sense law and order that farmers and their families should not be subjected to this kind of disgraceful attack from a small number of activists in our community putting them under threat.
This goes to the premise of this bill. This bill delivers on the Liberal-National government's commitment to back in Australians. In this case, we are backing in Australian farmers and primary producers by introducing new criminal offences to protect them from the unlawful action of animal activists. Over the past few years, we've seen militant animal rights activists and others trespass onto legitimate businesses, including farms, which in many cases are family-run small businesses and family homes. Many of these activists have engaged in property damage and theft of livestock as well as food contamination and other biosecurity breaches. Above all else, they make famers and their families feel unsafe on their land and in their homes doing their business. Farmers and other primary producers are a vital part of the Australian economy, our society and our community, and they deserve our protection so that they can go about their business free from harassment and threats of harm.
This reprehensible conduct has been enabled, encouraged and facilitated by a number of groups sharing personal information online, including names and addresses of farmers. These are farmers who, in the vast majority of cases, do nothing wrong. These are farmers who, in the vast majority of cases, care much more for the welfare of their animals than most other people.
This bill introduces new offences for the incitement of trespass, property damage or theft on agricultural land. The first offence relates to incitement of trespass on agricultural land. It would make it an offence for a person to use a carriage service to transmit, make available, publish or otherwise distribute material with the intent to incite another person to trespass on agricultural land. A person guilty of this offence would face up to 12 months imprisonment. The second offence is a more serious offence; it deals with incitement to commit property damage on agricultural land. Where a person uses a carriage service to transmit, make available, publish or otherwise distribute material with the intent to incite another person to unlawfully damage or destroy property or commit theft on agricultural land, they will be guilty of an offence and face up to five years imprisonment.
Let's not be under any misconceptions here. It is already a serious offence for individuals to commit trespass on agricultural land. It is already an offence for a bunch of inner-city activists to jump on a bus and launch a commando raid on a family farm. It is also already an offence for them to break and enter. The problem is that, over the last little while, we've seen personal information—names, addresses and other personal details of farms, abattoirs, feed lots, saleyards and many other lawful businesses across Australia—published on a map on the Aussie Farms website. Many of these places of business are also homes to families—homes where children sleep and play—and it is absolutely disgusting that animal activists and others would invade these spaces in some sort of crusade.
I have raised concerns with the Aussie Farms group in the media. They have charitable status and so receive some of the same generous tax concessions as legitimate charities like Vinnies, the Salvos, the Fred Hollows Foundation and so many others doing an amazing job in our community. As many would know, the government is working on a response to the ACNC review, which will be released shortly. What I will say, however, is that, as we look at that, we need to consider some of these issues with groups like Aussie Farms and Save the Tarkine coalition—whom my colleagues from Tasmania would be well acquainted with—whose operations involve criminal trespass and the incitement of criminal trespass on private property. The sabotage of legitimate businesses constitutes an abuse of the privileged position that charitable organisations have in Australia. I've raised my concerns about Aussie Farms with the charities commissioner. Political activists and organisations condoning criminal activities masquerading as charities corrode Australians' trust in charities overall.
What Aussie Farms has demonstrated is the potential for the internet to be used by activists to incite others to commit trespass and property offences on agricultural land. Therefore, it has prompted this stronger action to deter those who incite this sort of behaviour. That's why, earlier this year, the government prescribed the Aussie Farms website as an organisation regulated by the Privacy Act. Farmers and primary producers can now make a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. In April the OAIC announced it was conducting inquiries to establish whether or not Aussie Farms was operating in compliance with the Privacy Act, and I look forward to its conclusion.
It is worth noting that the bill includes specific exemptions for journalists and lawful whistleblowers. The provisions of this bill will not apply to a news report or current affairs report that is in the public interest and is made by a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist. These two tests—the public interest test and the test of working in a professional capacity as a journalist—will ensure that organisations who incite trespass cannot masquerade as journalists. These offences will not apply to a whistleblower who makes a public interest disclosure in accordance with existing whistleblower laws such as the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the whistleblower provisions in the Corporations Act or the various other mechanisms in state and territory law. Whistleblowers will be able to continue to report on animal cruelty, including online, provided they do so in accordance with existing laws. Neither do these laws in any way inhibit freedom of speech and freedom of political communication, provided those rights are exercised without incitement to trespass or damage property.
Let's not be under any misapprehensions here. We saw in the consideration of this bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee many examples of some pretty disgraceful behaviour on the part of so-called animal rights activists in their crusade against good, decent and honest people going about their lawful business. We heard from Mr Ean Pollard, a pork producer in New South Wales, whose property was attacked by activists in the middle of the night in Easter of 2013—then came the abusive phone calls, emails and letters. We heard stories of farmers sending their families away from the farm prior to an attack by animal activists, because they didn't feel it was safe to keep them there and that there was nothing to guarantee their safety. We heard of farmers terrified of leaving their elderly parents at home. This sort of behaviour from vegan terrorists and other so-called animal activists is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm glad that we're acting against these kinds of extremists.
The simple fact of the matter is that the government has a duty to do what it can to protect lawful businesses from unlawful disruption and damage not only for economic reasons but because these sorts of attacks have pretty devastating personal effects and personal impacts on the victims. The government has a duty to ensure that people going about their lawful business are protected and to ensure that carriage services are not misused. This legislation underpins a range of other carriage service offences already in the Criminal Code that complement state and territory laws.
This does come down to whose side we're on. The Liberal-National government has made it very clear that we are on the side of those quiet Australians. We are on the side of, in this case, Australian farmers going about their lawful business. They should not be subjected to these kinds of disgraceful attacks. We shouldn't be giving encouragement to these vegan terrorists. The Labor Party are going to have a make a decision in the long run on where they land on these issues. I'm glad that we're going to be receiving their support for this bill today, as much as they are seeking to have two bob each way as they deliver that support, and I commend this outstanding bill to the Senate.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:41): I speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, having thoroughly considered the matters as deputy chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The substantive report that we have provided contains a very, I think, comprehensive response to this very flawed bill. On behalf of the Labor Party, Senator Chisholm and I have produced that document, which I might say is much more substantive than the government's report.
The reason we've had to do this is the bill is so basically flawed. This is a bill that may well have set out to have an intent to deal with questions that the minister has just outlined, but it was, in fact, a response to an election announcement, as the public servants made very clear. It was, in fact, in response to a very thin legislative program by this government in the context of an election campaign where they had very little to say. As the various departments and agencies that presented to the committee demonstrated with their meagre submissions of only one page, the departments had clearly not consulted widely, had not provided an exposure draft of the legislation and had demonstrated just how grossly underprepared they were to deal with this legislation. We see here that the government has put forward a proposal in search of, essentially, a response to a problem that has yet to be demonstrated can be dealt with in the way the government claims.
There is a real risk in this bill that the government will actually fail to achieve its stated aims. The bill has been hyped as a necessary response to farm invasion by animal rights activists, but it's put in a context where there are, at the moment, 31 separate statutes across this country to deal with matters which the Attorney-General's Department has identified. We publish in our report, which goes for page after page of detail, what the actual legislative response is across the Commonwealth in identifying those issues and where the states are currently strengthening their legislative response to the claims that are being made by the groups that have recently published the addresses of farms and abattoirs in this country.
We know that trespass is normally and properly prosecuted by state and territory jurisdictions—so are theft, property damage and incitement. Like trespass, this is a crime that has been covered in common law throughout the history of this nation. All the legal armoury needed to crack down on farm invaders already exists. But, you see, this is not a bill that deals with the question of trespass. This is not a bill about trespass; this is a bill about incitement. It's about incitement, and it goes far beyond farms and far beyond agricultural premises. It goes to food production premises in cities. It goes to aquaculture facilities. It goes to some research facilities. It goes to some facilities on private land but not on public land. It's inconsistent in its approach. It deals with fish processing plants. It deals with vegetable processing plants that deal with fish processing. It deals with a series of measures which clearly have not been thought through, because it's been drafted in such a hasty manner. This is legislation that has been brought forward with little thought to the consequence of its broader implications.
The bill creates two new offences under the Criminal Code: the use of a carriage service, such as the internet, to incite others to trespass or to damage, destroy or steal property on agricultural land and in relation to agricultural related activity. And, of course, it was promoted because of the publication of certain facilities by animal rights activists. The Labor Party, as has been made very, very clear, strongly opposes farm invasions, and I personally have strongly opposed people who move on to the killing floors of abattoirs, seek to close down abattoirs or seek to undermine the work of our meat industry in this country. I have long been associated with the meat industry in this country. So to suggest that somehow or other we're implicated, with—what do you call it?—'vegan terrorism' is a complete nonsense.
Senator McKim interjecting—
Senator KIM CARR: The whole question here, we've said and made it very, very clear—
Senator McKim interjecting—
Senator KIM CARR: We are very, very clear about the nature—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ): Order!
Senator Sterle: If I may, Madam Acting Deputy President, the rest of us have sat quietly through other senators' contributions, but I can't hear Senator Carr for the shrill screaming of Senator McKim. I would ask you to bring him to order.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim?
Senator McKim: On the point of order, I was seeking to defend Senator Watt who is not here to defend himself because Senator Carr was attacking him mercilessly for his speech.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do remind senators that disorderly behaviour will not be tolerated, and I could not hear Senator Carr either.
Senator KIM CARR: The Labor Party has strongly supported international best practice in animal welfare and the establishment of the independent Office of Animal Welfare, and we see there is absolutely no contradiction between the prevention of animal cruelty and supporting the proper and best practice in regard to livestock, farming and the flourishing of a meat processing industry. And, of course, you would expect that's what this bill should be seeking to do. But there's considerable evidence to suggest that that's not what this bill actually does, and that's why it needs substantive amendment.
There are so many unintended consequences, and I'll try to list some of them. The Law Council pointed out to the Senate inquiry that the bill is quite clearly unnecessary given the range of state matters that are being dealt with. It's disproportionate in that the penalties imposed under these measures are much greater than those that apply to the people who actually do the trespassing. It is a bizarre aspect that in some cases you get six months for trespassing in the states but five years for using the telephone. The penalties imposed here, as I say, are disproportionate. They are perverse outcomes. And, of course, we have to ask whether or not there has been proper consideration of what the consequences of that might be.
Then there is, of course, the very serious issue of the threat to rural protest movements and legitimate industrial activity by Australian workers, and that's the real thing that worries me about this bill: the consequences it has for meat workers, whether in the red meat or the white meat—pork or chicken—industries, or for the National Union of Workers or the AWU in the dairy industry, or the AMIEU, across this country.
Then there are the consequences it has for whistleblowers. The minister points out that there are issues as to public interest declarations. We've got people on trial in this country at the moment for whistleblowing. We've got journalists who are being raided in this country at the moment for exercising their position as journalists. And you're going to try and tell me there are adequate protections in this legislation!
There is a real, serious risk here that, when you undermine people's capacity to provide that whistleblowing service and undermine the work that journalists do, you actually enhance organised crime in this country. And you say to me, 'That's an extreme statement, isn't it?' In the meat industry, what did we have? We had the Woodward royal commission. Minister, you're so clever and you know so much about this—do you remember the Jodhpur report? The AMIEU were raided because of their involvement in whistleblowing, where they'd exposed drug running, firearms running, money counterfeiting and meat substitution, and all of those matters were picked up in the Jodhpur report and companies were named. This was organised crime by meat industry companies. Many of those companies named in that report are still operating. If you impair the capacity of whistleblowers and journalists and industrial organisations, you actually may well advance the capacity for criminals to act.
Then you've got the case of illegal abattoirs operating. Three weeks ago, the ABC broadcast footage on the nightly news in Melbourne of an illegal, unregistered abattoir where beasts were slaughtered and then placed in the backs of cars and distributed to families in Melbourne—a very serious public health risk.
These are issues that go to the public safety of our community. They're not about animal liberation. They're not about animal activists on farms. They're about our capacity to actually defend our community where the regulators in this country are overwhelmed and so not able to do their job properly and require the assistance of journalists and whistleblowers to protect the public. The AMIEU have been heavily involved in providing that community service. They're not a bunch of—what did you call them?—'terrorists'. They're good, hardworking, blue-collar Australians, protecting Australians. And you have put forward legislation that may seriously impede their capacity.
Then, of course, there are industrial rights. One day you could be on a plant as an organiser; the next day you could be laid off for trespassing and incitement. In this country, we've had example after example where officials have been prosecuted for incitement.
We have a long history of farmers who have taken an interest in public protest. The pipeline protest group in my state 10 years ago sought to march on the Premier of Victoria's farm and occupy his farm. In 2011 potato growers drove 50 tractors to blockade the McCain factory in Wendouree, to protest the way they were treated on potato pricing. In 2012 protesters against coal seam gas engaged in 10-day protests in the Kerry Valley in Queensland, against Arrow Energy. In 2013 farmers in Warrnambool staged protests against low milk prices. And we have seen action taken against Santos on coal seam gas. Just recently we've seen farmers, on water rights—aren't they equally entitled to present their case? Are they not threatened by measures such as those contained in bills such as this?
We've got a rich tradition of public protest in this country. So we've got to be wary of unintended consequences, and that's what this Senate report draws to our attention. It is the job of Senate committees to look at the detail—not to be carried away by the hype, the fake news and the very poor reporting on these matters but to look at the actual detail of legislation. Of course, you'll be told that this will never, ever happen; we'll never see this sort of legislation used improperly. Mr Mark Maley, the editorial policy manager of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, made this point to the committee:
The intention of the bill and the honest intention of the framers of the bill at the moment—I am perfectly prepared to believe that the intention of the bill is exactly as you've described it. But that doesn't necessarily control how it's going to be interpreted or used in potentially a very different political environment—a very different environment of public opinion. These things do have an impact on how these sorts of pieces of legislation can be used … But whenever legislation is done we have to think, 'How could this legislation potentially be misused?'
And we have the position that was put to us by the journalist from Right to Know and similarly from the Murdoch newspapers. The case that has to be put has to be seen in the context of how this legislation could be reasonably interpreted in other circumstances, because it's been very badly thought through.
As I said, I am very concerned about what it means for workers. We have seen throughout the history of this country how workers have been subject to various pieces of legislation that have been brought forward in one context and used entirely differently in another. I'm very concerned about the consequences for whistleblowers and journalists. I'm very concerned about what we know to be the long history of crime in the meat industry and the incapacity of the regulatory authorities to deal with that.
But I'm particularly concerned about the consequences for research facilities. We saw, when I was minister, the situation in which CSIRO facilities here in Canberra were destroyed. We know the situation there, where territory legislation was used in those circumstances. But the point is: why aren't they covered by this bill, if this is such a big issue? Why doesn't the 'use of agricultural land' definition go to that issue? Scientific research that is directly related to agriculture is undertaken in other facilities, but it doesn't come within a bull's roar of being dealt with.
This bill has been rushed into this parliament. The government's created expectations for some of its stakeholders that it'll be able to deliver on this. When you ask the Federal Police what extra resource is going to be put into enforcing this legislation, the answer is: none—no additional resource.
Whatever the political objectives of this government are—and I might be somewhat suspicious about its intent—what we can say is that the states and territories have clear responsibilities, and they have responsibilities for more-rigorous enforcement of their laws. They have an obligation to protect farmers but they also have an obligation to protect workers and their families. But to act in haste and to draft legislation which has been so badly thought through may well have quite serious unintended consequences that will be with us for some considerable time.
I always find it ironic when we hear from the conservative benches how we need to expand Commonwealth powers, given they spend so much time talking to us about the need for deregulation. This is yet another example where we're getting a bid to grow the Commonwealth, to expand the Commonwealth. This bill doesn't do the job that the bill's supporters claim it will. It needs extensive amendment. We'll soon see just how strong the government's bona fides are in that regard. If the government were genuinely concerned about animal welfare, it would at least follow the advice of the RSPCA, which says that we are miles behind international best practice. We've made no effort to come anywhere near international best practice. If the government were genuinely concerned about protecting farmers, it would at least provide the resources to the Federal Police to—
Senator Seselja: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. We have had 19 minutes and it is still not clear from Senator Carr's contribution whether the Labor Party would actually be supporting the bill. My impression was they were, but we've heard 19 minutes of him arguing against it. Perhaps in the last minute he might be able to clarify for us what his and the Labor Party's position is.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stoker ): Senator Carr, you will be able to continue your contribution, noting that you've got 50 seconds to let us know your position.
Senator KIM CARR: I will explain it to the ignorant minister at the table, who, clearly, should borrow my hearing aids, because he has enormous difficulty understanding even the most elementary propositions. He should also take the trouble to read the Senate report, which highlights the gross flaws in the government's approach.
What happens when you try to run these sorts of smears against people is you're likely to get a very strong response from the people you're seeking to smear. This is another example where the government has nothing serious to say about the future directions of the country and tries to come up with political gimmicks instead of trying to deal with the substantive problems that farmers and workers are facing in this country. With an industry that is of such importance to the economic performance of this country, you would have thought that the government would have done a much, much better job than this.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:02): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to support this bill, yet I must, in loyalty to the farmers and the people of Queensland, expose a contradiction—and my comments will highlight that. My comments will also highlight a deepening unfolding crisis, and that will be at the core of what I have to say. May I say before Senator Carr leaves the chamber that I applaud his comments in many regards because they do need to be highlighted, and we look forward to seeing your party's amendments.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to safeguard Australian farmers and primary production businesses from those who incite trespass or other property offences on agricultural land. Trespass into 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 and in their own homes—and in fact being unsafe.
The bill will address this by creating a new offence of using a carriage service like the internet 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 person's trespass or related conduct could cause detriment to a primary production business being carried out on the land.
The law would cover dairy and meat farmers but also other agricultural premises, such as abattoirs, meat exporters, fish farms, livestock saleyards and tree, fruit, vegetable and crop growers. This is a comprehensive defence of our people engaged in these vital businesses for our national security and, in fact, the nutrition of every Australian. This offence would apply whether or not actual trespass or detriment resulted from the incitement. A person found guilty of this offence could face up to 12 months imprisonment, and I say, 'Fair enough.'
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 agriculture land. Vegan terrorists are causing havoc and actually putting lives at risk—not just animal lives but human lives. This offence and the substantial penalty proposed reflect 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 five years.
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.
Now I'm going to speak to our farmers and to all Queenslanders. I am going to express their view on the core issue. You farmers, you Queenslanders, are a vital part of not only the Australian community but the world economy. You deserve to go about your business free from harassment and threats of harm. You deserve to feel safe in your own homes. There was a time when feeding the hungry was a good thing—not anymore. In this green nightmare world, feeding the hungry is being demonised. Farmers are being hounded from their properties, deprived of water, forced to pay power and water charges that are beyond common sense and made to pay for concocted imaginary damage to reefs hundreds and, in fact, thousands of kilometres away, with no evidence that the farming is doing any damage. Further, innocent farmers are being bashed at a time when they are facing severe drought and incredibly—and artificially—high energy costs. Not content with that level of persecution, antihumanists are now storming rural properties, destroying equipment, cutting water pipes, scaring the animals and even stealing or hurting animals. They're cutting brake lines on vehicles, which indicates that they don't seem to understand that human life is important.
These farms are often biosecurity zones. The ability of those properties to maintain their production, in accordance with the laws of the land for the protection of humans right across the country and internationally and in accordance with export requirements, is being compromised by these foolish zealots and ideologues. If this keeps up, the only agriculture in this country will be run by large corporate farms owned by multinational corporations. Do the Greens even think these things through?
This legislation does not make it illegal to protest. People can protest outside a property. People can protest in the cities. People can even protest here at Parliament House. One more thing: this bill still allows antihumanist food haters to protest at the ballot box, which is fundamental. That right has not been taken away. The only place these terrorists can't protest now is inside someone's home. I use those words because these protesters do not seem to comprehend that these properties are peoples' homes—farmers' homes, lawfully acquired residential premises. Would these protesters accept a pro-food demonstrator marching through their Newtown, Melbourne or West End share house, disconnecting the pipes and scaring the occupants? No, of course they wouldn't. But they would take that right away from others. They want to steal peoples' lawful freedom.
This reprehensible conduct was enabled and encouraged by the sharing of information online—including personal details such as farmers' names, addresses and workplaces—on websites like Aussie Farms, which, despite the name, is not about supporting farming; it is about shutting down Aussie farmers and their families. This bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, will prevent the incitement of online hate against hardworking, decent farmers, and that is entirely appropriate. The introduction of the bill is an encouraging step towards protecting Australian farmers and agricultural businesses from trespass, property damage and theft incited through the online distribution of activist materials. It has been introduced as a deterrent for people considering entering farms, premises and other agricultural land illegally, and has wide-ranging support from farming communities and from Australians generally. One Nation will be supporting this bill.
However, we do call for the government to address other actions that are far, far more crippling and damaging to farmers in a state like Queensland that depends heavily on rural producers. Just like the trespassing on farming properties and agricultural processing plants, these actions are driven by activists without data, contradicting the real-world data, and these actions are driven by the same people that drive the destruction of farmers' property that we've talked about.
Let me talk first about property rights. The stealing of farmers' property rights without compensation, against our Constitution, was brought on by the UN's Kyoto protocol, was based on no data and was promoted by not only the Liberal government that started it federally but also the Labor governments that pushed it in Queensland. My heart goes out to the McDonald family at Charleville and many other families. Dan McDonald is branded a criminal because of the Queensland government legislation. A second issue is water—that is, the lack of infrastructure and the high prices of water, driven by the UN's Rio de Janeiro declaration in 1992 signed by the Keating government—again, no data; again, pushed by the Liberal and Labor Party policies. We now have people like Debbie Gibson in North Queensland not wanting to grow fodder in a drought because of high electricity prices. This brings me to energy: the UN's Kyoto protocol in 1996, the Rio declaration in 1992 and the Paris Agreement in 2015—again, all driven by the UN, a foreign body—based on no data, pushed by the Liberal and Labor parties, and affecting every single Australian and every small business who uses electricity. Then we've got carbon farming, driven by the UN's Kyoto protocol—again, based on no data and pushed by the Liberal and Labor parties.
My heart goes out to people like Cate Stuart and other farmers who are doing it tough, facing the onslaught of the banks as well as government at both state and federal levels. We've now got the farmers on the eastern coast of Queensland facing absurd legislation, supposedly to stop their soil run-off, chemical run-off and fertiliser run-off, driven by the UN's Rio de Janeiro declaration in 1992—again, based on no data and pushed by the Liberal and Labor duopoly. My heart goes out to people like Robert Rossiter and others right along the Queensland coast, who are facing devastation because of this. Then my heart goes out to people like Timmsey in Innisfail and other fishermen—and fishermen right around Australia, not just in Queensland—who are being decimated by the UN Rio declaration's consequences—again, based on no data and driven by the Liberal-Labor duopoly for many years. And then I think of the tireless work of Bruce Wagner, who has exposed the Queensland government's ridiculous trigger mapping, which is just a sham and steals farmers' property rights. My support goes to Bruce, because the catastrophe that he and other farmers are facing is driven by the UN's Rio declaration in 1992—again, based on no data and, again, pushed largely by the Labor Party.
As the Green Shirts Movement is saying in Queensland—and as we've been saying and as Senator Pauline Hanson has been saying since 1993—this is an ideological assault on rural Australia. We need reversal with urgent action to relieve the pressure on farmers and to restore basic rights and freedoms. What the government are doing in imposing themselves on businesses is no different from the activists—vegan terrorists—imposing themselves on farmers. Farmers care for the land and they care for the animals. It's in their livelihood to look after both the land and the animals. I want to commend Steve Andrew, the One Nation member for Mirani, for the work that he is doing to restore the natural environment by working with farmers.
There is another topic causing severe stress to farmers, and that is the false and unfounded statements from the Greens and the ALP on climate, and these statements drive crippling policies that in fact drive the government of this country. I know many people in the LNP who advise me that they do not believe the UN's fraudulent lies pushing unfounded climate alarm. These are driving devastating policy and underpin the destruction of primary industry and our country's productive capacity—and our country's future productive capacity.
I could talk for hours, in great detail, on solid, empirical evidence proving that human carbon dioxide is not affecting the climate and does not affect the climate. I will, though, focus on just three points that the Greens-Liberal-Labor-Nats are pushing as a result of other activists' work. They're supporting activists here, not shutting them down. For now, I will simply supply some basic facts. Let me explain the basic claim that activists are pushing on climate. What they're saying is that the sun's energy comes down to the Earth, whether it be the land or the ocean, and warms the Earth, and that re-radiates energy out. That is then trapped, so they say, by carbon dioxide molecules and re-radiated back.
Now, this is absurd. The atmosphere is cooler than the land's surface and it's supposed to be warming the land surface. Let me explain. The atmosphere cools the Earth's surface. Through contact and conduction and through convection, it removes heat at an accelerated rate from Earth's surface. It cools the Earth's surface. Yet activists have convinced the government that the atmosphere, which cools the surface, warms the surface. It is patently absurd for another reason: carbon dioxide is a stable compound not capable of generating heat, not capable of trapping heat.
Regardless, let's just look at the actual physical quantities in the atmosphere. It is absurdly low: 0.04 per cent of the air is carbon dioxide. That's four molecules in 10,000 molecules of air, meaning one molecule of carbon dioxide in every 2,500 molecules of air. Nature, every year, produces 32 times more carbon dioxide than all human production of carbon dioxide, including the animals we farm, and Australians produce just one 1.3 per cent of the human carbon dioxide. That leads to one molecule of carbon dioxide from humans in 85,000 molecules of air. Even that is ridiculous and meaningless because, in 2009, carbon dioxide produced by humans fell as a result of the recession around the world, and yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase. Why? Because nature controls carbon dioxide levels. There is 50 times more carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans, in dissolved form, than in the entire atmosphere. Slight changes in temperature lead to liberation or absorption of that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So nature has complete control of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it doesn't matter what we do to stop humans producing it; we cannot affect the level in the atmosphere. What it means is that, in our supposed work—driven by the Greens, followed by the Labor Party, followed by the Liberal-Nats—even if we wanted to cut carbon dioxide it wouldn't have any impact on the level in the atmosphere.
Hard, measured data, though, and physics show that carbon dioxide does not drive temperature on any time interval. On many time intervals, temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, as I've just explained. And, if we could control Earth's thermostat, we would increase the temperature—because warming is beneficial. If we could control our air's carbon dioxide level, we would increase it because carbon dioxide promotes plant growth. Hard data shows that Australia was warmer in the 1880s and 1890s than today; it was warmer a thousand years ago.
Why am I saying this? Because the government and the whole of this parliament are being driven by activists. There is no agency or university or person anywhere in the world who has provided the empirical evidence proving human carbon dioxide affects the climate and needs to be cut—not the CSIRO; not BOM; not NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, nor its head Gavin Schmidt, because I have interrogated all of these and none of them can provide the evidence. The UK Met Office has none. Its Hadley climate research centre has none. The UN climate body, or supposed climate body, the IPCC, has none. Its core chapters for 2001, 2007 and 2013—that's chapters 12, 9 and 10—provide no evidence, yet we're following activists. I have challenged the Greens to produce their evidence. Three times Senator Larissa Waters has run from my challenge to debate. Now her leader, Senator Di Natale, is on the run. I challenge anyone in the Greens—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator ROBERTS: including the laughing hyenas, to provide the empirical scientific evidence—the specific hard data, the measured observations, the physical observations within a logical framework—needed to prove human carbon dioxide affects climate and needs to be cut.
We can thank the farmers, not just in Queensland but right around this country, for being the driving force that causes Australia to absorb more carbon dioxide than it produces. But no-one talks about that. This is a political push to drive an unelected socialist government. Maurice Strong founded it back in 1972 and has promoted it since. Neither he nor his useful idiots—to use Lenin's words—like the Greens have ever provided the evidence behind their climate claims, which simply serve the UN's campaign to control land, resources and lifestyles to control people. The UN's Agenda 21 is the template. Richard Court, in rebuilding the Constitution, Rebuilding the Federation, shows how the UN is doing it. He wrote that in 1992. This is the only book that really matters, because it is Australia's Constitution, and we need to return to it.
But worse—not only are these UN pushes, like Agenda 21, destroying farming, destroying our country and stealing our governance and our sovereignty; they are causing us to waste time and take attention and resources away from real and serious environmental and humanitarian crises. I love our state. I love our country. But it hurts me to see shops shut, from TI in the north to Tugun in the south and Thargomindah in the west. From Cooktown to Coolangatta to Cunnamulla, people are doing it tough.
The real crisis is driven by activism—the fraud and corruption of climate science, the destruction of governance and sovereignty and the smashing of Queenslanders and their state at the hands of dishonest Liberal, Labor and Nats policymakers, marching to beat of the Greens' Pied Piper. We commend this legislation as a first step in facing off to the activists. But One Nation will continue to hold this government and other parties accountable to bring back our country for all Australians. We are the only party working to expose this and we will continue to do so.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stoker ): Thank you, Senator Roberts. May I remind you for future addresses that props are not to be used in the chamber. Senator Davey.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (11:23): I note on rising to speak to this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, that this is not my first speech. On this matter I rise because it is close to home, literally. I live on a mixed farming property that combines intensive livestock, rangeland livestock and cropping enterprises. I'm lucky, because to date I have not had to drive through activists as I do the school bus run. I have not woken to find that activists have vandalised property and harassed animals near my home. I've not had my address published on an activist website to promote trespass and vandalism. But I do live in fear that it could happen any day, and not just to me and my family but to the families that also live on that same property, who may be innocently targeted by this sort of behaviour.
I thank Senator Roberts for noting that this bill is not about banning legitimate and lawful protest—protest that can occur on public lands. This bill is about banning people using a carriage service to incite trespass, which is breaking the law. This bans people from using a carriage service to encourage people to trespass on private property.
Senator McKim: This doesn't change that. This doesn't change the trespass law.
Senator DAVEY: Trespass is already against the state laws; I acknowledge that. I commend the states that have already taken actions against animal activists to strengthen their trespass laws, such as New South Wales; who are recognising at long last how important this is not only to farmers, their families, their employees and their businesses but also to biosecurity and good animal welfare protocols. I implore those states to thoroughly enforce those laws and I implore the judiciary to apply effective penalties, but, until those state laws are strengthened and until those penalties reflect the seriousness of the crime, we must in this place do what we can to prevent the promotion and incitement of these organised and malicious crimes.
I have friends who have been targeted. I have a dairy farmer friend who used to proudly show her property and her enterprise to people on request—she was proud of the work she did—until one day she became the victim of an attack. It turned out that one of those visitors that she showed through her dairy was actually just there to scope the joint and later returned to install hidden cameras. She now has installed her own CCTV cameras as a defence against future activist invasions. Another friend owns and manages an internationally recognised sustainable piggery. This piggery has won international environmental awards for its sustainability. It is a carbon-neutral piggery. She lives there with her young family. She has been targeted by activists 10 times; 10 times they've had their property broken into. In one instance the activists broke in during the dead of night. Breaching strict biosecurity protocols and risking the health of the whole herd of pigs, they woke the resting animals, and those that didn't wake of their own accord were poked and prodded until they woke squawking and screaming. The distress they caused for the animals got exactly the results they wanted: footage that they could release not to the authorities, to actually report animal welfare concerns, but to the media.
But what do you expect? These campaigns are not about truth; they are about misguided ideals. If these activists were truly concerned about animal welfare, they would not break into farms and collect hidden footage that they would then hold onto and release only at a time that suited their media strategy. If they were genuine and they had genuine concerns about animal welfare issues, they would report it immediately to the right authorities. In New South Wales we have a very strong relationship with the RSPCA, who thoroughly investigates any reported concerns about animal welfare needs. Perpetrators, when proven, can be prosecuted, and that is as it should be.
But on that point I do note that this bill does provide exemptions for both journalists and whistleblowers to ensure that legitimate media reports or whistleblowers who lawfully disclose allegations through the correct channels are not affected. That is also as it should be. Those that promote farm invasions do not differentiate between farm enterprises. If you look at the Aussie Farms online map, it includes intensive livestock as well as organic and free-range businesses. It lists both family farms and corporate farms alike. Apparently they are all bad.
Not only do the actions of activists have animal health and welfare consequences, breaching biosecurity protocols and stressing animals, but there are human consequences as well. Just this year, eight innocent people in Victoria became unemployed overnight when the owners of Gippy Goat Cafe decided it was not worth the continued harassment to keep their cafe open. This business, a small family-owned cafe in regional Victoria that employed eight local people, next to a goat dairy, was invaded at least twice and had its livestock stolen. Its staff were harassed by phone, and customers were harassed online in an ongoing and targeted campaign until it simply became too much. In this case, one of the activists who broke into the business—and stole a goat, mind you!—was caught and charged and fined $2. That's right—$2 for theft of livestock. Imagine if I broke into a jeweller's and stole a diamond ring and stalked and harassed staff. Do you think I would be forgiven with a $2 fine? What we are talking about here is breaking and entering and theft. It is not animal activism; it is breaking and entering and theft. And in this day and age, when we do not tolerate bullying and harassment and when we are trying actively to stamp it out in our schools, workplaces, homes and communities, why do we accept bullying and harassment in the name of animal activism? I do not buy it.
Australian farmers and their staff have a right to feel safe in their businesses and in their homes, and I have a right to feel safe taking my children to the school bus. Farmers should be able to carry out their business without the threat of activists invading their homes and stealing property. By all means, if you think a farmer is doing the wrong thing, report it through the legitimate authorities, but most farmers are doing the right thing and they should not have to fear animal activists illegally entering their properties, potentially bringing contaminants and diseases onto their properties that could wipe out an entire farming operation. Associated businesses like feedlots and abattoirs need to be able to carry out their business and employ people, providing jobs and economic activity in our regions and putting food on our tables, without fear of attack and obstruction which risk not only the safety of their staff but also the safety of the activists.
These new laws make it an offence to publish material via a carriage service with the intention to incite trespass on agricultural land or associated businesses. It sends a clear message to activists: if you use personal information to incite trespass, you risk jail. I reiterate that this does not prevent people holding legitimate protests about their concerns, but it does prevent people inciting trespass, which is breaking the law. This is what we can do in this place to protect the people in our nation who produce our food and fibre, and I commend it to the chamber.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (11:32): We should call a spade a spade. The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 is antiprotest legislation pure and simple, or, to be equally accurate, it is ag-gag legislation. In a paper published in the Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity last year, Elizabeth Englezos described ag-gag legislation in the following terms:
… laws which effectively 'gag' or reduce discussion of some of the more controversial aspects of animal agriculture and its practices. By preventing public oversight and criticism of factory farms and their practices, ag-gag laws can allow some of the more egregious forms of animal cruelty to continue. Evidence suggests that ag-gag laws have prevented external scrutiny and may contribute to reduced animal welfare under the guise of animal welfare protection.
Ms Englezos also said, when the predecessor to this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015, was introduced:
… Australia's proposed ag-gag laws provide an unnecessary criminal sanction which disproportionately affects activists and whistle-blowers and has a chilling effect on free political communication regarding animal welfare concerns. Prevention of legitimate public discourse and debate over food production and the treatment of animals during the food production process may also undermine the democratic process.
In fact, this is actually the primary intent of the bill that we're debating here today—to stifle free political communication around animal welfare concerns and to try to discourage those who would engage in such free political communications to stand up on behalf of animals who remain voiceless in this country, apart from, in this parliament, the efforts of the Australian Greens.
If this bill was genuinely about the safety and security of farmers and their families, as the government and some Labor members have tried to convince us, it would actually say so in the explanatory memorandum—but it doesn't say that. And if government was really serious about acting on the concerns of farmers, as my friend and colleague Senator Faruqi pointed out in her second reading contribution, they would be actually acting on what farmers are saying is the issue of highest concern: illegal pig farming and pig dogging on their properties. But no: the government's not bringing in laws to address that; they're bringing in laws that attack animal activists and, in doing so, risk being ruled out of order by the High Court because of the way they constrain the implied freedom of political communication that exists in our Constitution.
This is by no means the first time we've seen such chilling legislation tabled by a conservative in an Australian parliament, and it's not even anywhere near the first time we've seen antiprotest legislation directly aimed at activists. In my home state, the Tasmanian Liberal government introduced the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014. I was in the parliament at the time, and I led the parliamentary campaign against this legislation on behalf of a whole movement of people in Tasmania—the environment movement that those laws were aimed directly at. The Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 is yet another act with an Orwellian title that could have come straight from the Ministry of Love: protecting big agribusiness from peaceful protests and their non-violent actions, protecting big agribusiness from the protestors—who are actually the ones most often acted violently against—protecting big agribusiness from cameras and protecting people from learning the truth about what happens in Australia's factory farming sector.
This bill is, quite clearly and quite patently, interference run by government on behalf of big agribusiness to shield that industry from greater public transparency and scrutiny. Will this interference work? Well, in Tasmania it did not. In fact, it's actually made protesters more determined to exercise their right to protest and to engage in free political communication. The passage of the Tasmanian antiprotest legislation quickly saw several arrests, including the arrest of former Greens leader and senator Dr Bob Brown. Although the Tasmanian government ultimately dropped its charges against Dr Brown and his co-arrestee, Ms Jessica Hoyt, they continued their High Court challenge to protect future environmental actions, arguing that the antiprotest legislation under which they were arrested violated the implied right to free speech and political communication in Australia's Constitution, and the High Court supported that argument. Quoting the High Court, Dr Brown said:
The high court has said: 'There is a right to political expression and we will uphold it.' You can't just start jailing people on account of their political beliefs or peaceful actions they might take to uphold those beliefs.
This is exactly the concern that many legal experts have raised in the inquiry into the bill we're currently debating, which was probably best summarised by the Law Council of Australia when it submitted this:
… the new offences may impinge on the implied freedom of political communication in that the breadth of conduct captured by proposed offences may overreach what is necessary for the effective operation of a system of representative and responsible government.
I make the obvious point that, since the passage of the antiprotest legislation in Tasmania's parliament, for years there has been a blockade in takayna/Tarkine, run by the Bob Brown Foundation, which is, on the face of it, in clear breach of those laws and yet which the government has failed to respond to on the ground. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I salute those brave defenders of takayna/Tarkine. I've been to that action myself. I got myself 20 or 30 metres up a beautiful old rainforest tree on a typical north-western Tasmanian day and looked out on some of the most awesome carbon-rich forests in a landscape so rich in Aboriginal cultural heritage. I want to place on the record my gratitude—and the gratitude, I know, of all other Australian Greens senators—for the actions that those brave defenders of takayna/Tarkine are conducting.
The government's suggesting that the current bill we're debating will protect the agribusiness industry. However, social research has shown that ag-gag laws erode trust in farmers and farming. This is the main problem in regard to this particular element of the government's argument: you do not build trust in our communities by putting up roadblocks to advocacy and information. By shielding big agribusiness from greater transparency and scrutiny, the government will only create more distrust of big agribusiness in our community. This will just further energise activists to seek transparency, accountability and truth.
As many speakers have pointed out, there are already state and territory laws covering the criminal acts identified in this bill. It is already illegal to make threats, menace or harass. There are already laws against single party surveillance. Theft, burglary and destruction of property are already criminal offences. There is already a Commonwealth Biosecurity Act. The Law Council of Australia, while calling on the government to justify the need for this bill, argued—and I completely agree—that there is no evidence that the existing laws are incapable of addressing the concerns that motivate the passage of the bill. There is no evidence whatsoever, and the government has completely failed to make the case for this bill.
This bill is not about agricultural protection; it is about authoritarianism, pure and simple. It's a bill about silencing public dissent and political communication. It continues the accelerating march down the dangerous path to a police state in this country and ultimately to a fascist state in this country. I want to pause there and reflect on my use of the word 'fascist' in this context. When I've used this word in the past, plenty of journalists in this country have suggested that in fact that is not a word that should be used in the Australian political debate. I say this: there is a live, raging debate in the United States at the moment about fascism. It is a debate that is being engaged in by senators and other congress members and activists in the US, and it's about time we had that debate in Australia. The reason I use that word is that we are seeing the rise of the rot in this country at the moment. If you want to fight that rise—and it must be fought—it has to be called out. And, if you're going to call it out, you have to name it up. So I'm going to keep naming it up, because it is just so important that we resist the rise of the extreme right in this country. When I say 'extreme right' I include a number of senators who sit in this place representing the Liberal and National parties.
This bill imposes stiffer penalties for certain people engaging in certain already existing criminal activities, thereby treating some people more harshly than others. This is blatant persecution and it is totally unjust. Should this bill be enacted, no other comparable industry will enjoy this kind of legislative protection being offered by this government to big agribusiness—and in saying 'big agribusiness', because of the definitions in this act, I include big forestry. As someone who was actually arrested standing up against the big forestry operations in Tasmania in the mid-1980s, I say this represents yet another disturbing move against dissent and articulates very clearly why we need a charter of rights in this country.
There have been 1,700 environmental activists killed just in this century alone around the world, just for standing up for the environment—1,700 brave environmental activists who paid with their lives for their activism and for their advocacy. In my home state of Tasmania, I've seen too many activists, their families and their properties being threatened. I've seen people being beaten. I've seen people terrified for their very lives—again, for standing up for nature and standing up for biodiversity and the environment. But what I haven't seen is a corresponding concern from the major parties for those activists' welfare and protection, or for the welfare and protection of animal rights activists like Cara Garrett and James Warden. These animal welfare groups—and the public debate they seek to inform—are exactly the people that the government is attacking in this legislation.
This bill is the latest in a long line of chilling and draconian bills introduced by this government—no doubt paid for in full and in advance by corporate donations from big agribusiness to LNP coffers. Where is all this going to end—this slow march towards authoritarianism, totalitarianism and fascism in this country? Big agribusiness is already calling for an expansion of this bill to cover other industries and activists, involving railway, port and forestry facilities. Make no mistake: this is the thin edge of the wedge.
If people don't believe that laws can be used for purposes beyond those which the government claim are the motivation for their introduction, I just refer people to the metadata laws passed through this place a few years ago—they are currently under review—with the combined votes of the LNP and ALP senators in this parliament. We were told these laws were necessary in the fight against terrorism, and they are now used by local governments to surveil citizens, to bust them for having unregistered dogs. That's the kind of bracket creep we're seeing in this country. The Australian community is becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about the treatment of animals in agribusiness. Proposing ag-gag laws in this climate will further damage the reputation of Australia's livestock industries and risks increasing tensions between consumers and producers.
I want to mention briefly the Australian Labor Party here. We heard a fantastic tub-thumping speech from Senator Kim Carr, pointing out the massive and manifest flaws in this legislation, just before he and his colleagues are going to line up to vote these ag-gag laws through this parliament. I don't have enough time to go through Labor's report out of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, but it was a very, very good report from Labor senators, pointing out the massive flaws in this bill, pointing out the potential for this legislation to be misused and pointing out the obvious ideological motivation behind this legislation. But, of course, the Labor Party is going to collapse in a screaming heap and vote this legislation through later today. What is actually the point of the Labor Party anymore? They're like the long-lost left wing of the LNP. They stand for nothing anymore.
I issue this warning to the Australian Labor Party: you have to stand for something in politics. You have to find your true values and stand by those values, and people, even though they may not agree with you on every issue, will respect you for that. The Labor Party is losing respect hand over fist. The big danger for Australia, for nature in this country, for biodiversity in this country, for the campaign against the increase of fossil fuel mining and export in this country, is that every time the Labor Party lies down the political debate shifts further to the right. And Labor, in capitulating on this legislation, is contributing to that shift. This bill has actually been described as 'a stunt' and as 'virtue signalling' by Senator Murray Watt, who is about to line up with his colleagues and vote it through.
I mentioned earlier that this bill is a living, breathing argument for the introduction of a charter of rights in Australia. We are the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of charter or bill of rights. We are continually seeing passed through this place legislation that erodes fundamental rights and freedoms that we used to send Australians overseas to fight to defend. We are now seeing them eroded hand over fist because we don't have a proper—or in fact any—charter or bill of rights in this country. Despite the government's rhetoric, this bill is not about strengthening the rights of farmers to safety and security. This bill is about weakening the rights of people and organisations to engage in political communication that draws attention to the rights or lack thereof of livestock animals.
I move a second reading amendment to this bill:
Leave out all words after "that", insert:
"(1) The bill be withdrawn and redrafted to deal with the numerous and significant unintended consequences that have been outlined in the Labor Senators' additional comments to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report on this bill.
(2) The redrafted bill, on introduction, be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report."
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (11:52): In March this year, on the Darling Downs, a goat-farming family had a knock on the door from the local police. They were told that a group of militant vegan animal activists was heading their way and likely to attempt to enter their property. Marcus Jensen, his wife, Shannon, and their toddler son were going about their business of raising goats for dairy—something their family has done ethically for 30 years and counting without incident. The National Farmers Federation puts the figure of family farms in the agricultural industry at 90 per cent. Farms are not just businesses; for that 90 per cent, they are also the family home. You can imagine how frightened the Jensens were to find that their property had been published on the Aussie Farms website, a site with one purpose only: to show extreme vegan activists where to go to invade, to intimidate, to steal livestock and to disrupt. Of course, those aren't the words they'd use; they'd say 'protest'.
I'm a big believer in free speech, so I feel really strongly about the importance of the right to protest. But there is a world of difference between peaceful protest that does no harm and invading private properties en masse with masks covering faces, in camouflage gear and carrying black bags with plans to steal, to record and to scare. By all means, protest loudly and peacefully in a public place where you cause no harm to others. But to scare children in their own homes, create biosecurity risks and harm animals and yet call it simple protest is nothing more than a lie.
Last month the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which I chair, held hearings on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, and we had the pleasure of meeting Mr Chris Delforce who runs the Aussie Farms Map website. He makes no apologies for the invasion of privacy. While he publishes a small, fine-print disclaimer on his website that says he doesn't condone illegal behaviour, when you speak to him, as we in the committee did, he was so much more candid. He said:
I think trespass is an unfortunate necessity.
Mr Delforce went on to admit that trespass is a crime under state laws already, but he made it clear he didn't intend to comply with the law. One law for him and the activists like him, and another for the rest of the Australian community, it seems. In January this year, The Land newspaper asked Mr Delforce if he would remove people from the map who asked to be removed. Mr Delforce said: 'That is not a request I will respect'. It shouldn't be necessary to beg for your personal privacy and safety, especially at home. It is because of Mr Delforce and people like him that we now need a law to criminalise the use of a carriage service to incite trespass or to incite property damage and theft.
Even if you did put aside the safety and personal security aspects of 150 people barging into a farm while you stand there facing them alone or just with your children, what about the biosecurity risks these activists present to farms? Biosecurity Queensland identifies 99 notifiable diseases which can potentially single-handedly destroy a farm business and bring an entire industry to a standstill. These includes diseases which over the last 10 years-plus have had a huge impact on industries in Queensland and throughout Australia: Australian bat lyssavirus, avian influenza, bovine virus diarrhoea, classical swine fever, duck plague, tick-borne encephalitis, equine flu, Hendra virus, Newcastle disease, salmonella—I could keep going. The risks are real.
I mention this because another image that really stuck with me from the Aussie Farms website was of a young woman, not wearing coveralls, not wearing any protective gear of any kind, holding a chicken she was about to steal. There are rigorous biosecurity measures in place on Australian farms that are vital to their commercial survival but are also vital to the reputation of Australian agricultural industries. It's part of the reason Australian produce is the envy of the world. So, when these militant, vegan activists enter, not wearing proper gear and purporting to impose their own, different, ways of measuring and protecting against risk, they not only jeopardise that reputation but the reality is they also present the real risk of these diseases being introduced. And they do it to steal. They steal animals that don't belong to them and they call it 'liberation'.
Another image on the website is of a calf in the back of a sedan being 'liberated'. It's stolen. Arguably, that's animal abuse, because I'm pretty sure that the measures that are normally in place for the safe transport of livestock weren't being applied in that case. In fact, it's quite often that the welfare of animals is jeopardised by the very activists who claim to enter in the name of the animals' welfare and safety. We heard from a pig farmer named Ean in the course of the committee's hearings. His farm was invaded by militant animal-activists. In doing so, the activists caused great disruption and distress to his pregnant sows. And he experienced, as a consequence of the activists' invasion, the death of many piglets who, in their distress, panicked and ended up in troughs of water and drowned. He didn't know about it until the morning because, in that circumstance, he hadn't been woken by their covert entry. They had snuck in without him realising until the morning. Animals died because of the actions of these militant activists—not exactly what I'd call an act of compassion.
Quite clearly, there is great potential for carriage services to be used by activists to incite others to commit acts like these. Australian farmers, most of whom operate relatively small businesses, shouldn't be subject to the illegal invasion of their property and their privacy through the misuse of services like the internet. So we need action to stop this lawless activism from occurring in a way that is harming the activities of Australian farmers. We need to let them continue their good work of feeding our nation and feeding the world, and we need to allow their families to feel safe in their homes.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill will amend the Criminal Code to include two new offences which criminalise the use of a carriage service to incite trespass on agricultural land. The first offence would apply where a person uses a carriage service to transmit, make available, publish or otherwise distribute material with the intent to incite another person to trespass on agricultural land. The person would need to be reckless as to whether that other person's trespass or related conduct could cause detriment to the primary production business being carried out on that land, and a person found guilty of that offence could face up to 12 months imprisonment. The second offence would apply where a person uses a carriage service to transmit, make available, publish or otherwise distribute material with the intent to incite another person to unlawfully damage or destroy property or commit theft on agricultural land. A person guilty of that offence could face up to five years imprisonment, reflecting the more serious nature of that conduct.
These amendments would cover dairy and meat farmers and other primary producers across the supply chain, such as abattoirs, meat exporters, feedlots and saleyards. Most importantly, these laws will protect farming families. They build upon the work done by the government already to protect Australian farmers from these activists. We've prescribed already Aussie Farms, the activist website inciting all of this mess, as being required to observe all of the requirements of the Privacy Act and we've encouraged the privacy commissioner to pay attention to the Aussie Farms website. Additionally, the government has written to state counterparts encouraging them to examine and, where appropriate, prosecute the trespass offences that are already on the books of our states and territories.
The Morrison government will always stand shoulder to shoulder with Australian farmers who sacrifice so much and give so much to this nation. These militant activists are not above the law, despite their misapprehensions. We will do everything in our power to deter militant animal activists from infringing the rights of farmers, from risking the safety of farmers and their families, from risking the welfare of their livestock, from causing biosecurity risks with the potential to damage entire agricultural industries and from breaking laws, including laws against trespass, harassment and theft of property. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:03): Protests have played a major positive role in Australia's history, and when we come together to speak up for the voiceless, to stand for justice and to protect our environment, we can bring about real change. The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 is not about animal rights activism; it's an attack on our right to protest. It's an attack on our right to be able to come together and achieve real change. I protested as part of the Franklin blockade. I was a leader in the East Gippsland forest campaign. These were incredible moments, working with others in the community to protect our precious natural environment and to make a real difference. Today, there are national parks on the Errinundra Plateau and the magnificent Rodger River forests that are protected because of our campaigns. South-west Tasmania is World Heritage and the Franklin River is protected. That incredible natural heritage is safe because of our protests and is being preserved for future generations.
Protesters have brought about positive change throughout Australian history in a whole range of areas, not just environment protests. There are plenty of those protests, of course. There's the antinuclear movement, the March in March and so many more. Yes, many of these protests are on public land, and so they won't be directly impacted by this bill. But sometimes protests are on private land, and sometimes it's not just animal rights activists, as legitimate as their activism usually is, and it's not just environmentalists. Sometimes, in fact, it's farmers who are protesting. In 1985, for example, 45,000 farmers gathered on the lawns of Parliament House to protest. Lock the Gate is an alliance of over 120,000 supporters, including farmers, and we support their right to protest against fracking and to protect their farmland from the impact of fracking. If these farmers were protesting, if they were potentially trespassing on other private land, they would be affected by this bill and the draconian penalties that are in this bill.
In the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report on this bill, the Labor Party acknowledged in their comments that there are multiple instances of farmers protesting in more recent years. In 2011, Ballarat farmers protesting about lower potato prices drove their tractors to the McCain factory in Wendouree. Warrnambool farmers staged protests over low milk prices in 2013. In 2014 a Coonamble farmer locked himself to a gate to disrupt Santos's coal seam gas operations in the Pilliga forest. Yes, these were on agricultural land. These are the sorts of protests, these are the sorts of actions—to protect our rights, to protect our environment, to protect the health of our community into the future—that are going to be drastically impacted by the measures in this bill.
Another area which is potentially affected by this bill is action that unions and workers and concerned people may take about agriculture labourers who are being exploited, people on temporary work visas—and, Deputy President, you and I were on a committee together, looking at the exploitation of people on temporary work visas—who are often holed up in incredibly poor-quality accommodation, being exploited dawn to dusk, working long, long hours in those horticultural operations absolutely outside the law. Potentially, anybody that wanted to put a spotlight on that sort of activity would be caught up by this law. If unions sent out an email to their workers to say, 'Why don't you come and have a look at what's going on here?' and if there's an attempt to gather evidence about what's going on here and, to do so, a need to trespass on private land to shine a light, to gather that evidence to see the levels of exploitation that are going on, those activities will be caught up by this draconian bill.
In this debate, Labor have made some excellent contributions, picking up on the concerns that they have about this bill. I call upon the Labor Party to join with us in trying to stop this bill, this outrageous piece of legislation, here in this Senate. Labor's second reading amendment notes, in fact, that there are 'a range of potential unintended consequences that could flow from the operation of new criminal offences contained in this bill', and 'calls on the government to carefully monitor the operation of the new laws'. We need to be doing more than this. This is bad legislation. This legislation needs to be stopped. If we had Labor joining the Greens and Centre Alliance and other crossbench senators here, we could stop this legislation in its tracks. We know that this government wants to attack our rights. We know that they have got a history of attacking protesters and attacking our civil rights, but we need the support of other parts of this Senate to stop this bad legislation in its tracks.
Senator McKim has spoken about the concerns we have with this bill from a legislative perspective, and the Law Council of Australia has raised significant concerns about whether this bill impinges on the implied freedom of political communications. There are concerns about the proportionality of this legislation, because there are already laws that prevent trespassing. When people trespass on private land, they know the risks they face. They know there's the potential that they will be caught. They know there's the potential that they will be charged. They know they may have to 'have their day in court' to explain why they took that action, and they know that, in court, there are potentially consequences for their actions. We think that those existing trespass laws strike a good balance and are adequate.
As I have noted, these laws, potentially, will impact upon farmers wanting to take action to ensure that their rights are protected. We of course support the rights to safety and security of all farmers, as we do for all members of our community.
Sustainable farming is fundamental to food security, environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation and adaptation. We, as the Greens, support farmers. We know the environment that they operate in and we know how central they are to a healthy Australia in providing the food that we all rely upon. That is why, at the last election, we announced $100 million in funding to drought-affected communities and a reversing of the coalition's cuts to Landcare.
But this is not a bill about farmers. It's a bill about weakening our civil and political rights. It's a bill about weakening the power of non-government organisations and activists and taking away their voice. This bill undermines a set of fundamental rights without doing anything meaningful to protect farmers. That is why the Greens are opposing this legislation.
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (12:11): I rise today to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. The Morrison government is committed to keeping Australian farmers and their families safe and allowing them to go about their business without harassment and invasion of their property. Farmers and primary producers are the backbone of our economy and incredibly important to our regional communities, including in my own state of Tasmania.
As a government, we are backing our farmers through major investments in infrastructure, delivering trade agreements which open up new markets for our farmers' produce, delivering the multibillion-dollar Future Drought Fund to secure our farmers' future and many other investments to support farmers to grow their business. Our government has a plan to lift agriculture, fisheries and forestry to a $100 billion industry by the year 2030. In my own state of Tasmania, we have a significant role to play in achieving that aim, and that's why we are investing $100 million for new irrigation schemes, which will dramatically increase the productivity of large areas of agricultural land.
As a nation, we have the best farmers in the world, which is why we have the best produce, the best meat and the best seafood in the world coming from Australia. But it's never easy for our farmers, with the challenges of drought, flood and fire and the variables of global market conditions. That's why the last thing our farmers need is law-breaking activists making it harder for them to do their job.
Unfortunately, in recent years we've seen a disturbing trend of radical activist groups choosing to organise and carry out trespass onto agricultural properties, chaining themselves to farming equipment and doing whatever they can to disrupt the lawful business of farmers and producers. For some reason, certain groups of people who choose not to eat meat believe that their dietary choices give them a moral superiority and the right to trespass on agricultural property and steal livestock in an attempt to convert all of us to a vegetarian diet.
The bill which we are debating today introduces new offences for the incitement, via carrier service, of trespass, property damage or theft on agricultural land. The bill introduces serious criminal penalties to ensure that farmers and their families are protected, with offenders facing up to five years imprisonment if they break these laws.
The vast majority of Australians—and, I hope, the vast majority of those in this Senate chamber—would agree that farmers should be protected from trespass, property damage, property theft and biosecurity threats which can result from deliberate, organised invasions of their properties. It's clear that these actions are not just the result of a couple of local activists banding together and deciding to cause trouble at their nearest farm. They are organised activities, by groups who are deliberately and methodically targeting farmers in the meat and livestock industries.
A recent example of this was the publication of the names and addresses of farmers by the protest group Aussie Farms in a deliberate attempt to incite trespass and harassment which appalled fair-minded Australians. This campaign directly targeted not just the farmer or property owner but also their families and children, who often live at the same address. Imagine, just for a moment, being a farmer and having to explain to your children that your name and address have been published online and groups of strangers are intending to break onto your property. Imagine just how traumatic and invasive that must be for those families, whose livelihood is dependent on their farming businesses.
But this isn't just an imaginary hypothetical. This sort of terror has occurred on our farmers' properties. For example, Australian dairy farmers have reported that farmers are scared to leave their elderly parents at home to take care of the farm in case of activist incursions on their property. It's an appalling situation that, in a country where we have free speech, where we have the right to protest and where we have a multitude of media and social media avenues to express views about these issues and engage in dignified debate, these arrogant, entitled activists feel the need to resort to trespass and break-ins which, quite understandably, cause fear and concern among people's families and children who live on the property.
The overwhelming majority of Australians, including those in my own state of Tasmania, are disgusted with this behaviour, and they welcome the government's commitment to strengthen laws to stop these actions. There are many areas of the law where it is an offence to incite or organise criminal behaviour, and it is appropriate that we respond to clear evidence of organised criminal activity by formulating laws that target those who are responsible, and that is what this bill we are debating today is seeking to do. Having listened to hours of contributions from activists during the hearings of the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which inquired into this bill, about why they didn't support the bill, I must say that I found these arguments remarkably thin. We were told consistently by activists that existing state laws against trespass are already adequate. Indeed, the contributions we've had from the Greens today have reiterated the view of their party—that they think state laws are already adequate and are already targeting the risk of this behaviour.
In what sense are these laws adequate, when we've seen a targeted escalation of farm trespass activity as a result of publishing this sort of information online? They're clearly not adequate to deter activists from farm invasion, and existing laws clearly do nothing to stop activist groups from using the internet and social media to coordinate trespass and invasion of farm property. Furthermore, it's an incredibly self-serving argument for activists to say that a law that they are prepared to break is adequate and that a tougher law is no longer required.
A similarly self-serving argument put forward by activist groups that are opposed to this bill is that the invasion of farms is justified for animal welfare reasons. Everyone deplores the illegal mistreatment of any animal, whether it's a pet, a wild animal or livestock. That's why we have strong laws in this country, both state and federal, governing the treatment of animals and livestock, and it's why there are appropriate authorities to enforce those laws and, when necessary, prosecute breaches. However, that does not mean that individuals with a personal aversion to eating meat have the right to carry out vigilante-style invasions of farms in an attempt to get their point across, in an attempt to convince the Australian people that they shouldn't be eating meat.
The rule of law dictates that if you suspect that a crime is being committed then you report it to the appropriate authority. If you believe your neighbour is breaking the law, do you dial 000 and report it to the police and allow the appropriately resourced authorities to handle the situation in a lawful way, or do you break into your neighbour's house to gather evidence for yourself or indeed provide some sort of determination of your own of a personal penalty against your neighbour on the basis of what they're doing? According to the logic of many of the activist groups that presented to the Senate committee, you should just kick down the front door, film what's going on inside the house and liberate some of the property on the way out—which is what these activists are arguing that they should be rightfully allowed to do on farming properties.
One of the other very important issues to consider in relation to this bill—and this goes particularly to the issue of animal welfare, which was raised extensively while this bill was undergoing committee inquiry—is the biosecurity threat and the potential to introduce disease pathogens to livestock and food contaminants to the processing chain as a result of protest activity on agricultural lands. When you listen to the experts, there is absolutely no room for doubt that biosecurity failures have the potential to damage our economy and decimate farming businesses, if not entire industries. Modern biosecurity processing facilities of food and meat, as well as on farms, are extraordinarily comprehensive, and they need to be, because the risk of disease and contamination if these processes aren't in place is very real, as has been witnessed in many countries around the world when diseases have broken out on farming properties and have killed tens of millions of livestock, birds and fish. Such outbreaks, if they were to occur in Australia in one of our industries, could cost our economy billions of dollars and have significant adverse impacts on the livelihood of our farmers. Indeed, the Department of Agriculture confirms that entry of unauthorised people onto properties breaches on-farm biosecurity and increases the risk of animal-to-animal, animal-to-human and human-to-animal disease transmission, which is a threat to animals, farm workers and, quite frankly, trespassers as well; they're putting their own lives at risk.
This was supported by the Australian Veterinary Association, which told the recent Senate committee inquiry that its support for the bill is primarily based on its concern about the high risks to animal biosecurity and welfare that are involved with unauthorised entry by these activists. The Australian Veterinary Association also expressed concerns about diseases that are carried on shoes and clothing. These include foot-and-mouth disease, for example. Australian Dairy Farmers agree that foot-and-mouth disease is a significant concern, referring to research conducted by the CSIRO, which estimates that the cost of an outbreak to the Australian economy would be around $50 billion over 10 years.
Anyone who has visited a meat-processing facility would be familiar with the extent of biosecurity controls that need to be in place to protect against contaminants. I've certainly visited a meat-processing facility in my own state of Tasmania and I have firsthand experience of the types of controls that were in place to prevent biosecurity outbreaks: hand and foot washes not only when entering a facility from outside but also when moving from one room to another, depending on what is being done in each room; checks to ensure that you don't enter a facility if you've recently had certain illnesses or diseases—there's quite an extensive questionnaire that I recently had to fill in, detailing any foreign countries I might have been to or any illness I might have had, because, if you allow in some people that have been unwell or have visited certain foreign countries, again there is a risk that these people will bring a disease onto one of these properties—and pressurisation of certain rooms in these meat-processing facilities to ensure airborne contaminants don't flow in from outside when a door is opened. There are a number of extensive controls in place at these facilities to ensure the safety of the produce that is being processed. At the end of the day, it's because the Australian public will at some point be consuming this produce when it is in their meal as a nice steak dinner. We all think Australian people should have the right to know that the food that they're eating has been prepared in accordance with biosecurity standards.
Breaking into a property, cutting through fences, cutting locks and breaking into sheds clearly represent major breaches of proper biosecurity controls. I'm not convinced these activists, when breaking into, say, a meat-processing facility, are taking the time, in the dead of the night at 2 am, to make sure that their hands have been washed, that they're wearing gloves and that they have put on their hairnet. I seriously doubt this is happening. It is the height of hypocrisy for people professing to care deeply about animal welfare to potentially expose livestock to diseases which could wipe out millions of animals. What is the response of activist groups to these biosecurity concerns raised by experts such as the Australian Veterinary Association? They said that, when they break into farms, they wear overalls and foot coverings. If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable just what an inadequate and insufficient response this is to a very real threat. Unfortunately, I just don't think your old pair of overalls and a couple of sets of gumboots are really going to cut it in terms of biosecurity.
Let's be very clear: people are perfectly entitled to choose not to eat meat if they want. They're entitled to encourage others not to eat meat—I don't suggest they make that attempt with me, because I love a good steak. But these people are not entitled to break into private property to steal livestock and to damage property or equipment and, in doing so, significantly threaten the livelihood of farmers, because they see that as the most effective way to push the views that they have about the meat industry onto everyday Australians. The people who organise and incite such criminal activity should be held to account by the law. Given the increasing frequency of such criminal actions, it is clear that our laws should be updated to ensure that this is the case, and that's what we're discussing here today.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 is a necessary response to the threats and harms caused by incitement of activist trespass on agricultural land. I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing forward this bill, and I'm proud to be part of the Morrison government which stands up for farmers and understands and respects the value of what farmers do for our country. I strongly urge the Senate to support the bill.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:25): Firstly, let's be crystal clear about what the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 does. It does nothing to address protesters who are trespassing on agricultural land, because that issue is already addressed under state and territory laws; it's already illegal to trespass onto private property and to cause damage.
We understand that for many agricultural communities, and indeed many farmers, protesters are an issue that's causing anxiety. Let's be clear: most farmers are doing the right thing. Most primary production facilities are family owned and run, and some of them are isolated. Most farmers care for their animals, and they are doing everything they can to ensure that their livestock is looked after.
But let's also be clear about why some people are deciding to take action into their own hands and about why some people are protesting by taking action on the streets. In Senator Chandler's contribution she said that it was about having a personal aversion to eating meat. But it has nothing to do with that, and it has everything to do with animals being treated cruelly and abhorrently and governments failing to act. That's what people are protesting about. Senator Chandler must have been asleep when Four Corners broadcast that horrific footage of animals expiring on a horrific journey as a result of the live-export trade with cattle and sheep—animals were being cooked alive at sea.
When it comes to raising animals, again, most farmers do the right thing, but we have laws that allow pigs to be trapped standing in sow stalls while pregnant unable to turn, unable to move and unable to interact with their piglets. That's what some of our current laws allow. We've got poultry that live short, miserable lives in tiny cages where they never see the light of day, where they can barely move and where they can't stand up on their own. That's what people are protesting about, and that's what people are concerned about right across the community.
This isn't an issue that is just limited to those people who are taking direct action but it is an issue that is of concern right across the community. They know that the government is not taking action on any of these fronts. They're too busy protecting their mates in big agribusiness, handing out perks left, right and centre, rather than standing up for animal welfare standards. The government acknowledges that property damage and trespass laws exist. It has been made crystal clear that, when it comes to laws against property damage and trespass, they're written at a state and federal level. So this legislation has nothing to do with people trespassing on private property and damaging private property, because those things are already offences. What this bill does is quash fundamental rights to organise, to advocate and to protest. These are antiprotest laws. This bill creates two new offences. The first of those is that using a carriage service for inciting trespass on agricultural land will result in a penalty of imprisonment for 12 months. The second is that using a carriage service for inciting property damage or theft on agricultural land will result in a penalty of imprisonment for five years. At its heart, this bill is actually about clamping down on political communication and the ability of people to organise and advocate for issues that they are passionate about, issues that many people right across the community care deeply about.
What it means is that if someone blows the whistle by filming illegal animal cruelty and then posting it online, they'll be prosecuted and subject to serious penalties. It means that if someone shares an event on Facebook for a non-violent protest—let's just say against something like a coal seam gas pipeline—they will be subject to prosecution. If somebody is advocating for an end to live animal exports, are they inciting trespass or property damage merely by calling for an end to those industries? These laws, as they are written, are so loose that many of these activities could be subject to prosecution.
Indeed, legal experts at the Law Council of Australia are extremely concerned about these laws. They say the bill has 'the potential to create a chilling effect on legitimate dialogue and debate around animal rights and food production'. That's what legal experts are telling us. We know that this has the potential to further restrict media freedom. Despite the very clumsy attempt to carve out an exemption for journalists, the Law Council also says, 'It may nevertheless make many media outlets reluctant to pursue legitimate stories.' That's called a chilling effect. These laws are unnecessary, because trespass and property damage are already illegal; people can be prosecuted under existing state and territory laws. But what they will serve to do is to have a chilling effect on people's legitimate right to publicly express a view about an issue that they have every right to be concerned about. Because this is an issue of great concern; it's something the Greens have been campaigning on for many, many years—improving animal welfare standards.
Really, this bill is part of a trend that we're seeing within this government where rising social movements for justice are being met with crackdowns by this government and parliaments right across the country. Instead of addressing what protesters are concerned about, they're going after people's legitimate right to protest. It's about putting fear into the community that people's activism and advocacy will land them in jail. Just look at the trend that we're seeing here in Australia. We've got raids by the AFP on the national broadcaster when their story uncovered potential unlawful killings in Afghanistan. In Tasmania we have a state Liberal government that introduced laws restricting protest that were so poorly drafted that the High Court found them to be unconstitutional—again, another government going after people's legitimate right to protest rather than addressing what people's concerns might be. In Queensland right now we've got a Labor state government evoking the ghost of Joe Bjelke-Petersen—cracking down on people who are concerned about climate change and the rapid loss and extinction of so much biodiversity in this country, and increasing search and seizure powers in response to the Extinction Rebellion and calls for a climate emergency. And what's the response from the Labor government in Queensland? 'Let's have laws that throw these people in jail.'
Of course, this is going on right around the world. But we shouldn't be looking at international jurisdictions and following on from their lead. We're seeing draconian protest laws being put in place in the US for the fossil fuel industry. We're seeing authoritarian governments around the world trying to destroy social movements and civil disobedience. We've got protests in Hong Kong being met with extreme police brutality, cracking down on what is a movement for democracy.
The reason politics is failing at the moment, the reason people are so angry at their political representatives, is that they're not listening. Instead, people are being met with governments—whether it be in response to movements for climate justice or for democratic rights or for improving animal welfare—that are cracking down on dissent. We live in a free and democratic society. Peaceful protest has always been an important part of achieving social change. Throughout history, civil disobedience has been a tool for people to make their voices heard, whether it be on universal suffrage or the civil rights movement. Most social movements throughout history have been successful because they have been legitimately expressing their right to be heard.
While we've expressed serious concerns about this bill, we also know that Labor acknowledges all the criticisms I've just made about this piece of legislation, yet we learn that they are going to support this bill. We know it's bad legislation. We know it does nothing to protect farmers. We know it is going to criminalise legitimate political communication. And Labor knows it, too. If you read what the Labor Party said in their additional comments in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which reported on this, Labor expressed precisely the same concerns. Firstly, in their additional comments, they said that the bill was unnecessary—correct—because trespass and property damage is already illegal. They said that the bill may have a range of unforeseen consequences—again, correct; you only need to look at what some of the expert legal commentary on this legislation has been: these laws could be used against farmers, including those undertaking legitimate protest against things like coal seam gas.
The Labor Party also acknowledged that these laws could be used against workers in unions in their fight for better pay and conditions in the food and agriculture sector—correct. The Labor Party acknowledged that the protections for journalists and whistleblowers are inadequate—yes, again, correct. And, if you look at the single recommendation that the Labor senators gave in full in that report, it reads:
Labor Senators recommend the bill be substantially amended to deal with the numerous significant unintended consequences that have been identified by submitters and outlined in this report, and that the amended bill be resubmitted to this committee for review.
It sounds like they're going to vote against the bill. It's a bad bill. There are serious concerns about it. But we now hear that Labor will support the bill, even if their amendments fail. How does this happen? Where has the opposition gone in this chamber? Well, I can tell you where it is: it's sitting over here, with the Greens and the crossbenchers. That's where the opposition to this rotten government is.
The Labor Party have decided that the way to beat the government is by becoming just like them, by giving them everything they want. Let's have a look at what they've done since the last election: $158 billion in tax cuts, something they rarely criticised in the lead-up to the election campaign—rightly, in my view. Again, they've rolled over and given them everything that they want—tax cuts for millionaires. It is a party that for 100 years has supported progressive taxation, and now they're joining with the Liberals to turn Australia into a flat-tax country, just like Trump's America.
And temporary exclusion orders: centralising more and more power in the hands of the home affairs minister—again, the Labor Party was critical of the government on that but have given them everything they want. Again, on the drought bill, the Labor Party made very clear that this was going to be a slush fund for the Nationals, and they opposed it in the lead-up to the election but have now given it to the government. In the lead-up to the election, the government established a $1.2 billion slush fund—not my words, but the words of the Labor Party—that could be spent on private schools, money that is being ripped out of our public school sector and going into the pockets of our wealthiest schools. Well, it was a slush fund in the lead-up to the election, and now it's Labor's slush fund, because they have supported the government on it, refusing to back Senator Faruqi's disallowance motion only this week in the Senate.
Here we are with a further crackdown on peaceful protests, on the right of innocent people to stand up and express their democratic views on how animals are treated. This bill has been roundly condemned by the legal fraternity. It encroaches on media freedoms and, indeed, restricts the powers of unions to ensure that they can advocate for better pay and conditions for workers in the agricultural sector. And Labor are again rolling over and supporting it and giving the government everything that they want. My message to the Labor Party is: you don't beat the conservatives by becoming conservatives; you don't beat the Liberals by giving the Liberals everything that they want; you don't kick out the tories by adopting their policies—you take a stand and you show some leadership.
Here we are in the middle of a climate emergency, where people in the state of Queensland are standing up expressing the view of so many people right across the country and, indeed, right across the globe, and saying that we can't continue to burn fossil fuels. But the response of the Labor Party in Queensland is, 'Let's crack down on civil disobedience; let's lock up protesters; let's give the green light to Adani; let's quash dissent.' People are screaming out for an alternative vision, and it is the Greens in this chamber that are the real opposition, taking a stand against this rotten government.
This is a bill that's unnecessary and expands the reach of the state in a way that criminalises people's democratic right to protest. We've already said that, if someone chooses to break the law by trespassing on private property or, indeed, by damaging private property, they have to face the consequences of those decisions—and there are laws against those actions. But to go to where the Liberal Party have now gone, which says that what we are going to do is restrict people's freedoms and rights to express their concerns over the welfare of animals, is a step too far, and it looks like the Labor Party have taken that step with them. I say to my colleagues within the Labor Party: it's not too late; you can vote against this legislation. Your amendments are not going to be supported. We've already heard that these amendments are unlikely to be supported.
Senator Faruqi: And they are weak.
Senator DI NATALE: And they're weak, as Senator Faruqi says. Show a bit of courage. Play the role of an opposition. Demonstrate that there's another view in this chamber that people can have faith in. But, if you're not prepared to do it, if you're going to roll over and if you're going to criticise this legislation, as you have rightly done through the Senate committee process, and then vote for it, we have no choice but to condemn both the Liberal and Labor parties for again taking us one step closer to a police state. This is bad legislation.
The media in this country understand that they are the next targets. Indeed, they are already being targeted. Peaceful protesters have known for years that this is a government that knows no bounds and that it is prepared to stop peaceful protests and to quash dissent in an effort to get its agenda through. You can stand up with the community or you can roll over and support what the government is proposing. It is the Greens who will stand up to this government's agenda. It is the Greens who are the real opposition.
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ) (12:44): It being nearly 12.45, we will now proceed to senators' statements.
Queensland: Bushfires
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (12:45): I rise to speak about the bushfire emergency that is currently underway in substantial parts of Queensland. Warm temperatures, low humidity and little to no rain during the winter months meant that there was an unpredictable situation ready to combust when wind came over the last week. The fires quickly became volatile and unpredictable. We mightn't be able to control those aspects of the weather, but what we have control over in those circumstances is how we respond to and manage those conditions.
I'm so proud to speak now about the excellent work of the Queensland Rural Fire Service volunteers. The Queensland Rural Fire Service has 36,000 volunteers who are spread across 93 per cent of our state. Given that Queensland is huge and, in places, sparsely populated, this is an achievement that is quite extraordinary. The training these volunteers undertake is constant, and it complements the work they do every bushfire season. They learn from their interstate counterparts and they lend a hand when there is trouble interstate. The Queensland Rural Fire Service indicated that, as of this morning, there were 58 sites across Queensland with bushfire activity and one remaining bushfire at Peregian Beach on the Sunshine Coast. This is in stark contrast to the peak of the fire dangers over the weekend, when residents in the Cairns hinterland, Stanthorpe and Ballandean were all on high alert and evacuated from their homes.
I want to tell the story of Julie Barnes, one of many residents affected by these circumstances. She is a resident of a place called The Summit, just north of Stanthorpe. On Friday night, at 11.45 pm, Julie was woken by a police officer pounding on her door, telling her she needed to leave the area. The wind gusts were up to 90 kilometres an hour, and it made the bushfires in the region so volatile that it wasn't able to be predicted how far they would go and in which direction. Julie said: 'It was so windy, so unpredictable. The sparks were being blown quite a distance ahead of the fire, and the firies didn't know what was going to happen. It was better for us to get out of the way.' The fire had jumped the New England Highway and the road had been closed to traffic. The power had gone out at midday; for the residents who use tank water, that meant they had no water either. Julie and other residents drove to Dalveen, where there was a functioning bathroom—an important resource; other people were also parked there for that reason. They stayed there for an hour until they had to move on to Warwick.
Fortunately, the next morning the fire was downgraded and Julie was able to go home. She still had no power and, therefore, no water. She spent the day in Stanthorpe and stayed that night at a motel called The Vines. The owners of The Vines didn't charge anyone who had been affected by the fires—in fact, no Stanthorpe motel did. It is the kind of generosity of spirit that I see so often in regional Queensland. When Julie returned home on Sunday morning, the power was back on. The Energex linesmen were doing a great job in trying conditions, with high winds continuing and fire-damaged poles.
Since returning home on Monday, Julie and the residents of The Summit have been on a 'watch and act' alert in case the fire regenerates and again poses a risk. She has nothing but praise for the police and community services who have helped out. But she has even higher praise for the Queensland Rural Fire Service volunteers who have saved so much property. She spoke of a house and shed on 45 acres of bushland at Applethorpe. She said, 'Quite literally, there was nothing left but the house and the shed'—in the circumstances, no small accomplishment. As tragic as it is to lose 16 properties, including the historic Binna Burra Lodge, at least it is only 16 properties.
Thankfully, we haven't yet suffered loss of life in Queensland. In New South Wales a rural firefighter is stable after receiving burns to his hands and face. He has a long recovery ahead of him, but, thankfully, he has his life. Rural firefighters put their lives on the line for their neighbours. Often their own homes are in peril when they go off with their crews to help in other areas. Ben Naday is a member of the Tallebudgera Valley Rural Fire Brigade in the Gold Coast hinterland. He joined because he wanted to contribute something meaningful to his local area. Jon Krause, who is the LNP member for Scenic Rim, reports on the work of the Queensland Rural Fire Service in this area, starting in his usual blunt way with the statement: 'They've been at it for six days straight.' On Thursday last week they were called in to Binna Burra and they've been on the ground since then, fighting the bushfires which have been taking swathes of bushland and which destroyed the Binna Burra Lodge. Some 50 trucks were deployed to this area, and hundreds of local firefighters have used their expertise to minimise the damage—the wind has been too strong and the fires too unpredictable for them to have a perfect record. The planes doing the water-bombing have been leaving from Boonah Airfield, and volunteers have done whatever they can to support the pilots and crews there.
Southern Queensland will have a couple of days reprieve from the strong winds which have been blasting from the west since last Wednesday. The 5,000 residents of Peregian Beach evacuated overnight have been allowed to return home, and it is to the credit of the Queensland Rural Fire Service that only one house in that area was lost—one important house, but at least it's only one. The Bureau of Meteorology predicts the strong westerly winds to return on Friday and we will have another weekend, I expect, of Watch and Act alerts. We're not out of the woods yet, but my thoughts and my prayers are with those who have suffered loss. I thank and encourage the volunteers and community groups who are helping affected Queenslanders to, little by little, put back the pieces. It's hard to be here, knowing how much hardship you are all enduring at home.
Queensland: Bushfires
Queensland: Cape York Peninsula
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (12:51): I want to start by acknowledging the words of Senator Stoker as a Queensland senator. I pass on my thoughts and condolences as well. I acknowledge the hard work of emergency service providers, Energex crews out there doing the work and the communities that have been affected, and I acknowledge a stellar job by the state government, who are, unfortunately, becoming all too accustomed to dealing with the natural disasters of fires, floods and cyclones.
I too want to talk about regional Queensland and, in particular, a recent driving trip that I made to Cape York. Unfortunately, now that we're back in opposition, we need to use our time wisely, so having 10 days set aside to travel from Brisbane to Napranum and Weipa and some towns in between was really a great privilege for me as a senator. It was a privilege to be able to do that and to have the opportunity to meet with mayors and community representatives and just have a chat—there are always a lot of people up in those parts of the world, including tourists having a look around—and get a sense of life and community there. And it was a real eye-opener for me. I had been to Weipa and Napranum before, but I'd flown in. Having the opportunity to drive this time gave me a better perspective on the distance covered up there and on the remoteness of the area. But it also meant I had time to spend, as I wasn't tied down to plane schedules. I could go from town to town and go off in various directions, so it was a tremendous eye-opener. I want to talk a little bit about the towns I went to, thank the people that spent time with me and talk a bit about the issues that I picked up, which I think are some of the ones that I want to have an ongoing interest in. I want to ensure that I'm a regular visitor back to that part of the world as well so I can continue to represent those people and also ensure that I'm continuing to stay in touch with the challenges in those remote parts of Queensland.
As I said, it was a 4,500-kilometre trip all up, from Brisbane to Weipa and Napranum and back. I started in Cooktown, where I met with the mayor, Peter Scott. Peter is doing an outstanding job there with such a large geographic area and such a low rate base and with the constant challenges there, particularly during the wet season, of roads and infrastructure funding. He's doing a really good job coordinating across the cape and ensuring that Indigenous communities and councils are represented as part of that group at the same time. There's also the ongoing role that they've got supporting tourism and tourism infrastructure in that part. It's increasingly becoming a popular place for people from other parts of Australia to go and explore, which is fantastic, but it also brings with it challenges from a low rate base to ensure that services are kept up and that roads are maintained in what can be a tricky part of the world to get around. It was a really good opportunity to meet with the mayor and hear a bit about the work they're doing. I look forward to getting back there soon to continue to learn more about the Cook shire and how it operates.
We stopped in Coen and spent a night there. Special thanks go to Barry at the Exchange Hotel for looking after us. He's recently taken over as the manager there. We had a really interesting meeting with Dion and Tim from Kalan Enterprises, a local Indigenous group that has really tried to provide local Indigenous employment opportunities, focused on the ongoing roads and maintenance work that needs to happen in that part of the world. They gave me a tour of their plant and equipment and talked about the ongoing work they have been doing and how they've been able to employ local residents—but also the sense of opportunity that they see for the future. There's obviously, in all parts of the cape, a tremendous opportunity around improving roads and improving the economic opportunities that result from that. But they're also starting to look at what they can do on the tourism front as well. With amazing nature and wildlife and because of the remoteness, it could become a really popular area for walking tracks. They're looking at what they can pursue around that area to diversify the economy and continue to build the roads and infrastructure but look at other economic opportunities for Indigenous peoples in Coen.
We also visited the Coen state school. Thanks go to Bronson, who is the deputy principal there, for showing us around and taking us into a couple of the classrooms. It was an interesting insight for me because the Coen state school is a Cape York academy school. I'd visited other schools that were not Cape York academy schools, so the compare-and-contrast element to that was invaluable. I met a number of students in grade 6 who are heading off to boarding schools in other parts of Queensland from next year as well. It was a real experience for me to get a sense that increasingly the high school opportunities for Cape York kids are at boarding schools further to the south, including as far as Brisbane. The teachers there do a fantastic job and they have had some real improvements in their rankings when it comes to some of the ways that that is done in Queensland.
We next drove to Lockhart River. It was about a five- or six-hour drive to get to Lockhart River, where the mayor, Wayne Butcher, and the CEO, Dave Clarke, were really generous with their time. They spent the morning with us, giving us a briefing on the work the council is doing. Particularly, they are doing some innovative work in giving local contracting opportunities. They are encouraging local Indigenous members to buy plant and equipment and then contract back to the council. So it's really creating a sense of entrepreneurship and small-business opportunities where they're forming their own work gangs, basically, to do road work. It's giving a good economic sense that there's employment coming into town. They're making money to spend in the local community. There's a sense of pride for those people as well. We met a number of those workers as we subsequently went on a tour and saw some of the road work and other work that they are doing in those towns. That is a really good story that the mayor and CEO should be incredibly proud of.
The mayor then spent the afternoon taking us on a tour around Lockhart River. We went to the Puuya Foundation and met with Dorothy Hobson and Veronica Piva, who are board members. That organisation is providing early education opportunities for children from when they are babies through to pre-kindy and pre-preschool age to come and basically get ready for the schooling system. They can spend time there with trained professionals, but also the parents of those kids can receive support at one centre as well. It is a really impressive organisation that has been operating now for a couple of years. It receives good philanthropic support from members of the philanthropic community. It has been a real success story. Talking subsequently to the teachers of the kids who have been attending the Puuya Foundation over time, I heard the kids are much better prepared when they do get to prep as a result of going through that program and getting a better understanding of the rigors of schooling. The parents obtain support as well to prepare their kids for schooling. That was a really important foundation that's doing great work that needs to be supported.
We then met with Kate Parkes, the deputy principal at Lockhart State School. Kate was generous with her time, considering that there was a real shortage of staff that day, so it was a real privilege that she took time out of her day to spend time with us and talk us through the school attendance issues that they have in trying to attract and encourage kids to attend school more regularly and some of the methods that they're using to encourage better attendance, but also the challenge of attracting teachers to the area to continue to ensure that they have the best possible resources available. It was a really interesting contrast between the methods that they are using there in Lockhart River and what they are doing in Coen.
Then we made the drive from Lockhart River to Napranum and Weipa. It was a really interesting contrast, again. Napranum is so close to Weipa, whereas the other communities are a bit more remote. Charles, Rhonda and Gail from the Mokwiri foundation talked a bit about the economic opportunities they're pursuing for Indigenous members in Napranum. Sonia Schuh from the Apunipima health service, who is also the deputy mayor, talked us through the work that they are doing around health but also the educational opportunities for a town that is so close to Weipa but doesn't have it its own education services like they do in Lockhart River and Coen, something that that community is very passionate about. Then in Weipa we met with the Weipa Town Authority and visited the Rio Tinto mine as well. Overall it was a fantastic opportunity to spend a week in the cape. I'm really thankful to those communities that spent time with me, because I found it an invaluable experience that will enable me to do a better job as a senator for Queensland. (Time expired)
Indigenous Australians
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:02): Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples countries such as Australia are obliged to:
… consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples … in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
Further, it is now well recognised in this country that, to effectively deliver measures in Aboriginal communities, they need to be developed, led and delivered by First Nations communities. There needs to be ownership, responsibility and expertise recognised from First Nations communities. First Nations communities need to have ownership and also responsibilities under that process. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlines the special rights that children have, any decision that is made that may affect children must prioritise the best interests of the child, every child has the inherent right to life and children are experts in their own lives and should be consulted on the decisions that affect them.
Good community structures are those that enable community members to take control of their lives and aspirations. This includes enabling First Nations communities to lead in the development and implementation of the policies, programs and services that affect them. Community control and ownership is at the heart of self-determination for communities. This means giving communities a genuine say over their lives through participation in decision-making and the ongoing delivery of programs. We know that community ownership also strongly corresponds with improvement in community wellbeing. During the August non-sitting period I visited two communities where very different approaches are being taken to the way they handle issues affecting their communities, their regions and their towns. Both towns, I think it's fair to say, have had their fair share of issues.
I visited Bourke, in New South Wales, a couple of weeks ago. Bourke is a town where, as I said, it's fair to say that they've had some significant issues. Bourke has for a number of years been embarking on what is in Australia a unique project. They have been engaged in a process of justice reinvestment. They're part of a process called Just Reinvest New South Wales. The theme for Bourke is 'Growing Our Kids Up—Safe, Smart, Strong'. They're taking a life-course approach within a justice reinvestment model. This is an Aboriginal-led place based model. They have a tribal council that includes elders and key people from the community and that is genuinely involved in decision-making. They have their Aboriginal-controlled hubs that are easily accessible. They have three now, catering to all the sorts of services that are required for the community. All services are required to meet the goals that have been established by the tribal council. They have a wraparound-service approach.
The community has a daily checking process—with services, with police, with those from juvenile justice, with the education system, with service providers—every day of the week, not on weekends. It sometimes lasts only about half an hour. I attended, and I thank the community very much for enabling me to attend the checking. They talk about what has happened during the day and overnight. For example, if a child's been out on the street, that issue is brought up at this meeting and the services talk about who's going to pick that child up and look into the issues around that child. Or if something else has occurred, they will talk about it. They won't talk about the person in general; that's confidential. But a service will pick up the issue and report back the next day. In other words, nobody falls through the gaps. There are these wraparound services, and the services are very impressive, I've got to say. The police are very active participants in that checking process and are working as part of this approach. They have a full suite of services.
I'm not saying everything is perfect here. There's still a lot to do, because housing is an issue, as it is in many other communities. The services are genuinely working together. They have diversionary processes in place. The state government is actively involved. They have ongoing funding; they don't have to fight year on year for funding. They have gradually had access to their own data, and more and more access—although they did have problems, as many communities do. They have a very active program about supporting young people in learning to drive. They have genuine wraparound services. They have an overall strategy about what they want to achieve. They are empowering and supportive.
The results have been reviewed by KPMG, and they've increased family strength. They have had a 23 per cent decrease in police-reported incidents of domestic violence and comparable drops in rates of re-offending. On youth development, they've seen a 31 per cent increase in year 12 student retention and a 38 per cent reduction in charges across the top five juvenile offence categories. In terms of adult empowerment, there's been a 14 per cent reduction in bail breaches and a 42 per cent reduction in the number of days spent in custody. You can see that this an empowerment based model.
Then I went to Ceduna, last week, where they have what I would suggest is a deficit model. They have an MOU in place with people who were not selected by the community; they are more self-appointed. The MOU was:
… to trial an approach to reduce levels of community harm related to drug and alcohol abuse and gambling through the implementation of a Cashless Debit Card …
You can see the difference already: the Bourke approach is genuinely community led and is also focused on children growing up strong and healthy from an empowerment based approach and from a life based approach.
The Ceduna approach is about a deficit of dealing with drugs and gambling without a vision for how children should grow up. It's led by government. It's not a model that empowers people; it's a top-down approach. People have been put on a cashless debit card, where the government quarantine 80 per cent of the money to only spend on certain things. They do have a drop-in hub, which seems to work very hard and is well-respected in the community. That hub supports a number of people, particularly in helping to sort out the constant and ongoing issues with the cashless debit card and in referring them to other services. But there's not that 'let's make sure that no-one falls through the gap approach', because they're not funded to do that.
People in Bourke know about the tribal council, but nobody knows who's on the secret community panel in Ceduna. There's not that openness or that transparency; it's a punitive approach. They don't have access to baseline data. People feel stigmatised and demonised. They feel 'angry, upset and stressed'—those are the very words they used about what's happening. There's no overall strategy that I can pick up and look at like I can in Bourke, and I'd like to thank the Bourke community again. I'd also like to thank the Ceduna people and people in Ceduna who spoke to me.
There's a very different approach in Ceduna. The Bourke approach is empowering and engaging and is having very clear results that aren't being spun. The Ceduna approach is through the cashless debit card, where there's no overall strategy and they're not focused on the children growing up safe and strong. They're not looking at people's life courses, and people feel demonised. We need to be relooking at the way we support communities in this country.
Starlight Children's Foundation
Zoe Support Australia
Krofne
R U OK? Day
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (13:12): A few weeks ago, I was very fortunate to visit the Starlight space at the Centenary Hospital for Women and Children here in Canberra. As I'm sure many will be aware, the Starlight Children's Foundation is a non-profit organisation founded in 1982 that offers support for children in hospital and for their families. Since 1982, Starlight have offered support to tens of millions of children around the world, and so I'm pleased to be able to support them in the vital work that they are doing.
Our hospitals are often daunting places, often for adults but for children in particular. They are places of stress and sometimes of trauma, so it's vitally important that sick children don't let their illness define them. This is what Starlight Express Rooms are all about.
Starlight Express Rooms are unique places filled with laughter, smiles and fun and, more importantly, no medical talk. Kids can watch DVDs, play video games and musical instruments, have their face painted, watch a magic show, make balloon animals, paint, paste and create amazing crafts or just clown around and have fun. It's their choice what they do while they're there, and so Starlight Express Rooms are so vitally important for children who often don't have a choice about being in hospital and what they do while they're there.
The most important part of the Starlight rooms are the Captain Starlights. Captain Starlights travel from Planet Starlight to earth with a big set of keys that open the Starlight Express Rooms in children's hospitals across Australia. Captain Starlights have never been to earth before, and they rely on the kids they meet in the Starlight rooms to teach them about planet earth. Here in Canberra, I met Captains 'Neon' and 'Bluebird', who were given those nicknames from some of the children whose days they were there to brighten. For the kids who are on the wards and can't get to the Starlight room, the Captain Starlights will visit them on the wards, bringing games and fun to their bedside.
When I visited the wards with a Captain Starlight, I met some trooper kids who had been in and out of hospital for quite some time for ongoing treatment. The immediate burst of light in their eyes when they saw the Captain Starlights around the corner would bring a smile to anyone's face. Even if it was only for five minutes, the five minutes of fun and games at their bedside completely distracted them from the machines and goings-on around them. The kids were loud and bubbly by the time we left. They were just being kids, which is invaluable. It is an invaluable contribution that the Starlight Foundation makes to so many lives, giving kids with serious illness a chance to just be a kid. I commend the Starlight Foundation for their outstanding work.
During the recess I was also fortunate enough to be able to visit Mildura. I want to thank the new member for Mallee, Dr Anne Webster MP, for inviting me to visit her electorate and for taking the time to show me around. One of the best parts of my job as Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters is that it gives me the opportunity to see some of the amazing work being done by so many charities, sometimes right here in Canberra but also right around the nation. While I was in Mildura, the member for Mallee was kind enough to take me to visit Zoe Support, which is a charity in Mildura that assists young mums through pregnancy, parenting and re-engagement with education. It's worth mentioning that the new member for Mildura comes to Canberra with the somewhat unique qualification of having founded this organisation. It's great that we have members of parliament who have this amazing real-world experience. Dr Webster is the founding director and patron of Zoe Support.
I was really pleased to visit. Zoe Support helps young mothers in a range of ways. While I was there I saw some of the range of services which Zoe Support offers. I met a number of impressive young women, many of whom were doing it a little bit tough when they came to the organisation, and you could see how they've been able to thrive. I met a young lady, Rebecca, who is a young mum in Mildura. Despite the challenges that she's faced in life, she's an excellent mother and is currently undertaking a certificate III as well as a bachelor's degree and is enrolling in a master's degree. I met other young women with a similar story.
It's an extraordinary thing to see these young women being supported at a challenging time. It's challenging, of course, being a young mum, particularly if there are not the right supports in place, whether it's family or other support. So it is great to have an organisation like Zoe Support. You can see how it transforms these lives. It transforms them in, I think, quite an intergenerational way. It transforms the lives of these young people, and I think that their children will perhaps have much better prospects than they otherwise would have had as they grow up and, hopefully, have all of the great opportunities that this nation offers them. So I really want to commend Zoe Support. I also want to commend Dr Anne Webster, the member for Mallee, for the great job she's doing representing her community but particularly for her work with this amazing organisation.
I also wanted to mention a wonderful Canberra organisation which some people may have had the opportunity to meet or come across—Krofne Donuts. I recently visited with Danijela, Anthony and Remy at a Krofne Donuts pop-up store in the Canberra Centre here in the ACT. Krofne Donuts is an amazing organisation. 'Krofne' is a Croatian word for donuts—but it's Canberra's social donut enterprise. It was started three years ago by Danijela Vrkic. She started the shop to give her son Anthony, who has Down syndrome, the opportunity to learn on-the-job skills. There are now pop-up shops right across Canberra employing young Canberrans with Down syndrome, to give them the same opportunities. Their mission is to provide meaningful employment opportunities and advocate for inclusion of people with intellectual disability. The pop-up stores operate in Tuggeranong, Majura, Queanbeyan, Kingston, Fyshwick, Civic and Gungahlin.
The delicious donuts are baked fresh every day at a store in Fairbairn. Danijela doesn't compromise on the freshness. Any leftover stock at the end of each day is donated to other local charities, such as men's sheds—and I did speak to some of the security guards, who sometimes take away some of the delicious donuts at the end of the day. The Krofne business has 21 staff, and 11 of those have a disability. Danijela is actively recruiting more staff. They're always looking for the support of energetic, positive, hardworking people who can donate their time to help them with their mission of 'baking a difference'.
While visiting the store I was able to meet Remy. Remy is an extraordinary young man who takes great pride in working for the company. He loves Danijela and the other staff who help him at work, and he was able to recommend his favourite Krofne flavour for me to purchase. There's a range of flavours to choose from.
It's a beautiful organisation. Danijela started it—it was the love of a mother—because she wanted to see the best for her son, but she's now presenting that opportunity to many other young people here in Canberra and the region. I think it's fantastic when people can take the challenges they have faced in their own lives and turn them into something wonderful. We are seeing young people with disability getting an opportunity to work in a way that they perhaps wouldn't have otherwise.
Finally, I just want to note that tomorrow is R U OK? Day, and, as an R U OK? Day ambassador over a number of years, it's something that I want to promote. I want to encourage people to be having the conversation and asking the question: 'Are you okay?' R U OK? has been a really successful program and a successful charity. It's all about these simple conversations that we can have with loved ones, be they a family member, a work colleague, or someone we know from a sporting organisation or our local church or community organisation. It's based on a really simple premise, and I think that's one of the reasons it has been a success and is growing every year. R U OK? Day is based around four very simple propositions. We should ask the question: 'Are you okay?' We should listen to each other's responses carefully. We need to listen with an open mind and not be judgemental. We need to encourage people to take action where that is necessary, where people perhaps aren't doing well.
With the scourge of suicide in this country, everyone knows someone who has been touched by suicide. Unfortunately, there are many of us who have had family or friends or loved ones suicide, and we don't want to see that. We want to reduce that. We don't want to see suicide going forward in this country. Yes, there are many great programs that the government is putting a great focus on. I know the Prime Minister has a real, personal passion for youth mental health, for mental health and for suicide prevention. But R U OK? Day is a great opportunity. So I'd encourage people tomorrow to really think about asking those around them how they're doing—asking them, 'Are you okay?'—and to listen to that response, to do it in a non-judgemental way, and then, where needed, to encourage some form of action. I encourage R U OK? on the amazing work that they're doing.
Road Safety
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (13:22): I rise to make a contribution today in senators' statements about one of my key interests since I have been in this place, and that is road safety. As the co-chair and co-founder of the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety, I'm very pleased to announce that this bipartisan working group is, once again, active in the 46th Parliament.
I want to go to a couple of issues which I will highlight in this contribution. One is that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee have conducted a couple of inquiries into road safety. In fact, they made two reports. An interim report of the inquiry into road safety was tabled in the Senate on 3 May 2016 and the final report on 26 October 2017. And, to date, there has been no government response. I think senators may well be aware, though general members of the public may not be aware, that, if a Senate committee concludes an inquiry and tables a report in the Senate, the expectation is that there will be a government response within three months. If there is no government response within three months, there is tabled in the Senate a report to say, 'The government hasn't responded.'
I can understand that, if there were a partisan political debate going on, the government wouldn't see fit to respond. But, if you look at the outcome in road safety to date, in South Australia there's been a 69 per cent increase in deaths; in Victoria, a 55.7 per cent increase in deaths; in Western Australia, a 12 per cent increase in deaths; and in your own state of Tasmania, Madam Acting Deputy President Askew, a 10.5 per cent increase in deaths. So it's not to say that the problem has gone away. It's not to say that the problem is a party political issue. It's simply to say that the government is asleep at the wheel. I would expect people to say: 'You'd expect to hear that from a Labor senator. That's the sort of stuff they do. They come in and bag the government.' If we look at the Review of national road safety governance arrangements—a public document commissioned by the department and published in June 2019—the final report says:
1. The Australian Government has not provided sufficiently strong leadership, coordination or advocacy on road safety to drive national trauma reductions. The Transport and Infrastructure Council (TIC) has not been used to enable cross-jurisdiction decision-making to drive the national harm elimination agenda.
2. The Safe System approach has been adopted but not ingrained or mainstreamed within government business by federal, state, territory or local governments. TIC is the ideal forum to drive meaningful mainstreaming of road safety and integrate Safe System principles. Work to mainstream the Safe System approach could be led through the Road Safety Strategy Working Group which all TIC members directed to be instituted in November 2018.
3. A fundamental and critical finding of the review is that road safety teams at all levels of government lack influence across the Safe System pillars and within their own organisation. For example, road safety teams lack influence over transport infrastructure design; planning; operation; maintenance and funding teams; and road transport infrastructure investment decisions, which do not include or retain Safe System treatments. Better integration of road safety teams into these decisions is essential …
This is the government's own report into its governance and operation of road safety. It is extremely critical and forthright, presented by and signed off by the secretary of the department, Dr Steven Kennedy, who I think is now Secretary to the Treasury. This review into their operation that is extremely critical is signed off very clearly by the secretary of the department. It's not just me coming into the chamber and throwing a stone at the other side. The report is implying that there's been dereliction here. We are killing a lot of Australians needlessly. There are simpler, more effective ways of spending our road funding to incorporate safe systems into the design of our infrastructure.
There are eight recommendations. For example, recommendation 6 says:
The speed of legislative change to incorporate safety features into vehicle design is under increasing pressure from new technology. This poses challenges for road users and for regulators across all levels of government who need to ensure vehicles meet community and government safety expectations. The Australian Government is responsible for leadership in this area and must lift its efforts to improve the uptake of new safety technology in the Australian new vehicle fleet.
We can't even mandate the importation of the safest vehicles. We have the Australian Design Rules, and we have a complex formula for complying with that. It's out of date. It relates to a time when we used to make motor vehicles. We used to actually manufacture motor vehicles, but we don't do that anymore. We import every one of them, and we can't even mandate autonomous braking technology and lane-keep assist. We can't mandate that across the vehicle fleet because the department wasn't resourced sufficiently, until very recently, to be able to do it quickly and effectively and because the government wasn't providing any leadership. The minister sets the tone of the department. The department reviewed its own operation, signed off by Dr Steven Kennedy, and the review was conducted by two experts. One is Jeanne Breen, independent reviewer and principal consultant of Jeanne Breen Consulting; the other is Mr David Shelton of Safe System Solutions. Both, reputationally, have expertise in this area. They were employed as consultants to write this report, and this review has found out what we've been saying for years—that the department has taken its eye off road safety.
We all know the awful tragedies that have unfolded with people killed in bushfires and other natural disasters around the country, and we know the energy that the essential services expend all hours of the day while they acquit their roles superbly, trying to keep people safe. Road safety is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week job and it has to be set at a very high level, with a safe systems approach. If you're going to spend $100 billion on roads, for goodness sake make sure they're safe roads. Most of the roads in Australia are owned by local governments. The local government doesn't talk to the state government which doesn't talk to the federal government. The money is coming from the federal government level in a lot of cases, so why are we not combining effectively to make sure we have safe roads?
We know what works. The Bruce Highway is a classic example of what works; a metre and a half of separation has saved hundreds of lives and thousands of injuries. What we know from talking to the experts is it not only changes behaviour on that road and saves lives and injuries; it changes people's behaviour when they get off that road, because they don't have a metre and a half of separation. All of a sudden they slow down and drive more carefully. So we do know what works. The safe system approach is well known. What hasn't happened has been the coordination, strength and leadership at a federal level. We want to see that improved. I know that the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien, is just as passionate about this as I am.
We need leadership straight through the department. Get it operating; get the Office of Road Safety to start working on its own report. Don't take advice from me—although we have given advice to the department ad nauseam over the years. There is its own report, the Review into National Road Safety Governance Arrangements, tabled this June. It has eight very succinct recommendations about the way forward. Resource it. The minister, the Hon. Michael McCormack, should instruct the department to get on with it. There is no need for any more reviews. This is clearly a case of, 'Whoever's running the department, give the appropriate guidance and leadership, and make sure the Office of Road Safety is appropriately funded and appropriately led.' People are then in charge of their own destiny, to go out across the various levels of state, territory and local government, to combine effectively to reduce this never-ending, repeating trauma of death and injury in the Australian community. The BITRE report, which goes to the trend in respect of injuries, is on the rise. What's happening in road safety is feeding into every state health budget. If we are better at retrieving people and getting them to hospital, there is an extraordinarily high cost for the ongoing care of those people. It is economics 101; if we can reduce death and trauma, we'll save lots of money.
Defence Procurement
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:32): I rise today to talk about a total failure by the government in respect of the local content component of our most expensive Defence project, the Future Submarine project. I have established through questions on notice that local content for future submarines is currently running at around 30 per cent. I've given Defence an opportunity to rebut that number. I quote from the Hansard of the April estimates:
I'm open to someone at the table saying, 'You're wrong.' I'm saying that these are rough. I accept that it might be 35 per cent, or it might be 25 per cent. But the reasonable assumption to make is that Naval Group will do most of the design work in France. I invite the officials to rebut that on notice and say, 'No, Senator, you're wrong; it's a better number,' or, 'It's a worse number.'
They haven't done that. We're running at 30 per cent. That's a long way from the 90 per cent indicated by the CEO of Naval Group at the time of the competition, when Mr Sean Costello said in an October 2015 media release:
Under a hybrid build, the percentage of local content would be over 70 per cent and for an onshore build over 90 per cent.
That is what DCNS said at the time. Then, of course, Mr Pyne, the then defence industry minister, stated on Q&A during the 2016 election campaign:
DCNS has admitted that probably less than 10 per cent of the work will be done outside of Australia.
This was the basis of the government, in their decision-making process, selecting Naval Group. Then, in April 2017, there was a walk back. Mr Pyne walked it back down to 60 per cent:
I've always said from the very beginning of the project, once I've secured it for South Australia, that a local build meant around 60 per cent of the project.
So we've lost 30 per cent, just like that. He reiterated that back in December 2018:
Well, this will be a local build. A local build is defined as being around 60 per cent-plus. That's what we've achieved on the Collins class.
The government's new position is: 'We're not specifying a figure. We're just going to maximum local content'—whatever that means. What we do know is, right now, it is an atrocious 30 per cent.
Well, I have something to inform the Senate of, something that the government has been using all possible measures to keep hidden from Australian industry. As a private citizen, as Mr Rex Patrick, I have been FOI-ing Defence. This is important to what I'm going to say later: FOI is a separate process to Senate processes. I'm treated no differently as a senator than I would be as Mr Smith from anywhere around this country. It is a right that Australians are afforded under law to seek information under FOI.
Under FOI, I asked for the Australian Industry Plan that was submitted by DCNS, when they were making their offer to the Australian government. In effect, I was asking for what they committed to when they submitted their tender. Well, the first response I got from Defence was: 'The document doesn't exist. There's no such document.' Of course, I challenged that. And a document was released with a number of exemptions. I have challenged those exemptions. I've spent a year with the Information Commissioner, beating down the government's bogus claims about exemptions, and I'm happy to report that I have been successful in my endeavours to get the exemptions overruled. The Information Commissioner ordered in June that the department release the document to me in full.
The contents of this document are so embarrassing to the government that they've appealed that decision to try to stop me getting access to it. So we're now in the AAT with the government trying to fight me getting access to what it was that Naval Group offered. As a Senator, I'm going to reveal what that document says. I'm going to reveal the content of that document. In some sense, I've already done it, because it is in a question on notice that is before the Senate at the moment on the Notice Paper. In paragraph 5.5 of DCNS's submission to the government, they said:
DCNS proposes a contractual program delivery model for Australian build activities that includes a partnership with ASC Pty Ltd.
DCNS wanted to partner with ASC such they could get access to their supply chains, to make sure they maximised local content. The document goes on further to say, at paragraph 5.6 of the industry plan:
The supply chain formed for Critical and Main equipment will ship to the selected integration facility associated with the build option. This method creates the optimum solution between maximisation of Australian industry involvement, and cost and risk to the build program.
Now here is the important part. Naval Group made these assumptions:
an assumption for the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Offer process, 50% of the Secondary equipment will be purchased from the Australian Market; and
100% of the Standard Equipment and services will be supplied where the shipyard activities occur, building on the existing CCSM supply chain.
And yet at estimates I've asked Defence, 'What have you contracted?' And they haven't contracted anything. I've asked the secretary, 'Why haven't you?' And he has put up his hands and said, 'That's a question for government.' So I asked the foreign minister in a question on notice:
Were you ever made aware of these 50% and 100% targets when you were the Defence Minister—
because she has been in this place telling us the 'maximum content' line that the government chooses to adopt now—
If so, how were these targets factored into answers you provided to the Senate in the 45th Parliament in respect of questions relating to future submarine local content.
I can tell the Senate that the minister has now answered. She has now provided a sadly bureaucratically drafted answer which reads as follows:
The information to which Senator Patrick refers was the subject of a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Defence. The request is currently subject to consideration by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As such, it would not be appropriate for me to comment.
What a disgrace.
We need to separate out what Mr Rex Patrick asked for, under FOI—and he is entitled to go through a process and the government's entitled to appeal—and what Senator Rex Patrick does in this chamber. Under the Westminster system of government I absolutely have the right, on behalf of my constituents, to ask a minister a question, lay it out and get an answer and not have the minister hide behind a bureaucratic process that fails to recognise the separation between what a minister is responsible for in respect of a senator and what a department might be responsible for in relation to Mr Rex Patrick. It's a disgraceful answer. It's there. You're trying to hide the fact that you have mucked this up, and Australian industry will suffer because of it.
People in this place know that I don't lie down easily on these sorts of things. I am entitled to an answer to this question and I will use various methods over the coming months to make sure the government is held to account in respect of this and to make sure I get the right answers. This is a total disgrace by the Morrison government. It's a sell-out of Australian industry. We have a situation where an offer was made under tender and the government presumably assessed that offer. We now need to understand: after the DCNS—or now Naval Group—were nominated as the preferred tenderer and they worked towards contractual negotiations, who walked away? Was it Naval Group that walked away from this 50 per cent secondary equipment commitment and this 100 per cent standard equipment commitment, or was it Defence that simply decided not to contract it in? It was in Naval Group's offer. Why have we walked away from Australian industry involvement in this program? We are running at 30 per cent, and this is a disgrace.
Anti-Semitism
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (13:41): I rise to speak about the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Australia, because I believe Australians have a right to know what is driving people in our public affairs. Like many Australian families, my family served in World War II against the Nazis. One grandfather served in the Western Desert in the Middle East. The other one served in the Merchant Navy on the Atlantic in oil tankers under siege from U-boats. I studied genocide at university. I learnt about it here in Canberra at the ANU. I was taught by Professor Colin Tatz. I have been to death camps in Germany, including Dachau. I have been to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. World War II and the Nazi atrocities have been part of my education. They have been part of the awareness of my being. I am worried that we are starting to forget.
I believe anti-Semitism is a rising problem in New South Wales and across Australia. Anti-Semitic incidents have increased by 60 per cent in the past year. There have been extraordinarily large increases in email threats, telephone based threats and vandalism. In New South Wales, there have been swastikas affixed to Bondi Beach's graffiti wall. Bondi Beach is where many thousands of Jewish people live, including many Holocaust survivors. My friend and colleague Julian Leeser MP, the member for Berowra, has been forced to endure anti-Semitic behaviour in his own electorate. During the last campaign, Mr Leeser had to deal with swastikas and Hitler moustaches as well as dollar signs for eyes. As he said himself:
For the third time my campaign materials have been attacked by people trying to intimidate me by sending a message of hate. First it was swastikas and Hitler moustaches on my posters on a street in Normanhurst.
He went on to say:
The $$ refer to old anti-Semitic lies of an international Jewish banking conspiracy; that Jews have control of the world's money supply. These sentiments were used by Nazis and others who have sought to spread hatred of Jews for centuries.
I believe anti-Semitism is also underpinning a disgraceful challenge against the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's citizenship. His mother, Erica Strauss, fled the Holocaust and arrived in Australia from Hungary in 1950. There are three people involved with this outrageous attempt.
One is Michael Staindl. Paul Karp reported in The Guardian on 31 July that Staindl launched a citizenship challenge under section 44 of the Constitution, aimed at establishing whether Josh Frydenberg had inherited Hungarian citizenship through his mother. The Australian then reported on 7 August that Michael Staindl is a climate activist who supports GetUp! Further, The Australian reported in late July that Mr Staindl has been involved in climate change protests and led a 'Stop Adani' event in 2017.
Let me turn to Trevor Poulton. The challenge is supported by Trevor Poulton. Geoff Chambers of The Australianreported on 8 August 2019 that Poulton was working with Oliver Yates's Kooyong Independents Group to test the Treasurer's eligibility. On 16 July Rosie Lewis of The Australian covered Poulton's activities. Poulton admitted to being engaged with the Kooyong Independents Group on the Treasurer's citizenship status. Poulton told The Australian he believes the Treasurer is a dual citizen and that 'the focus should be on Frydenberg'. Poulton is the author of a book, called The Holocaust Denier, about a police officer who 'begins to question the nature and the extent of the Jewish Holocaust'. Any reading of his 2014 submission on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes clear that this man believes the Holocaust is overdone in Australian schools and that there has been a vast conspiracy to overblow the Holocaust. He rejects the established figure of six million dead Jews from the Second World War and he goes on to say:
It would appear through the teaching of the Holocaust in Australian schools, non-Jewish school children, particularly those of northern European descent and Muslims, are potentially being encouraged to loathe their own ethnicity.
Poulton said these amendments on 18C could 'liberate the debate on the Holocaust in the public domain'. He's gone on to say that the debate on the Holocaust was 'the Holocaust narrative'.
This takes me to the third person, Oliver Yates. Yates ran against the Treasurer in Kooyong as an Independent and received eight per cent of the votes. Post election, Yates emailed the members of the Kooyong Independents Group. The email of 14 June 2019 says: 'It appears many candidates in the last election failed to provide enough information on their section 44 disclosures. If thought appropriate, they will recommend candidates for referral to the High Court. This has started in Kooyong.' Yates says he's not involved in the section 44 challenge. Yet on 31 July Mr Yates told The Australianthat he knew Staindl. This is the third limb of clear evidence that this man is organising resources on the eligibility of the Treasurer, which includes three points: (1) Poulton's statement of 16 July, (2) Yates's email of 14 June and (3) Yates's statement to The Australian on 31 July. Yates is involved in, if not at the nerve centre of, this outrage.
Staindl, Poulton and Yates should all be ashamed of themselves for their appalling behaviour. They are banding together in the shadows to try and unseat the son of a Holocaust survivor. They are pretending that they are not working together, when they clearly are. The basis for this challenge is anti-Semitism.
We are proud of Jewish Australians. They have risen to the highest offices in the land. We are proud of Josh Frydenberg. He is a great Australian and a great friend, who is well regarded across this parliament. The Liberals will always call out racism. We worked with the Labor Party to open Australia after World War II. We dismantled the White Australia policy together. I call on our education sector to keep teaching the truth about the Holocaust. We cannot afford to forget—what begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews.
Finally, I call on all Australia's community and political leaders to never walk past anti-Semitism or racism in any form. Racism is a sickness of the heart and the mind. It should never be tolerated. This is an illegitimate challenge to the Treasurer's citizenship by people who have an obsession with the Holocaust. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak out and call this outrage what it is—rank anti-Semitism.
Riverina Electorate: Drought
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:50): I rise to put on the record some significant engagements I've had in the duty Senate seats which I have been allocated by the Labor Party, and to which I attend with considerable joy—not that I always see things there that give me joy, but it is a pleasure to meet with Australians to talk about what's happening in their community and articulate the needs and concerns of those communities.
One of the key areas that I went to was in the seat of Riverina, the seat that is held at the moment by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal-National coalition and the Leader of the National Party, Mr McCormack. Despite the drought—and I have been in other parts of New South Wales—I would say that there are still some rolling green hills in the seat of Riverina. They were quite a sight. Clearly there is a boundless natural beauty in an environment of which the whole of that community is very proud, and they are warm and very welcoming people.
I commenced my visit and inquiry of local people with a visit to the Riverina FEC, with members who gathered in Young, from Parkes, Cootamundra and Wagga Wagga Wagga, to let me know about the issues affecting them and the communities in which they live. I also stayed at the Empire Hotel to speak to local residents about issues that are of great concern. Unsurprisingly, many of the of the participants in those conversations expressed some considerable concern about the impact of the drought. While they are still, as I said, experiencing some greenness of the fields—and there is a bit of canola there—they are dependent on the broader economy in the western part of New South Wales into which they plug, and they are very concerned about the impact of failure by this government to strategically plan for drought. It's a failure which those in the other place have been discussing. I know that in my team, particularly this morning on the radio, the member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon, pointed out the failure of this government over six or seven years to come up with a strategic plan to protect the people that they're supposed to be looking after in the regional parts of this country.
Locals tell me they're very alarmed at the state of provision of health care. They are subject to considerable burden because of the tyranny of distance, and they articulated great concern about the cost of having to drive to large regional centres to get health care and even to access GPs, such is the abject failure of this government in providing the most basic services to people in the bush. They're also very concerned about the action of the Liberal-National party at state level that forced amalgamations, and about a failure by this government to attend to the reality of a need for real jobs and proper stimulus of the economy where they live.
Just to show how out of touch some of the members who come to this place are, I would like to put on the record the concern I have about Wagga Wagga Airport, and how it reveals the tin ear of the local member, Mr McCormack. He is not backing his local community, but rather saying they don't need the sort of assistance that the community and I happen to think is very important.
Wagga Wagga City Council is one of only two per cent of regional councils who don't own their airport. Instead of owning their airport, as most of the other cities around this country do, they are slugged with a $300,000 cost every year by the Department of Defence. That $300,000 is money that's garnered from rates. It could be money that Wagga Wagga council could be spending on roads, guttering and public amenities for the local community. It is clear that the people of Wagga Wagga deserve a better deal from this government, and they certainly deserve much more advocacy and a better deal from their local member, who has been out there and looks like he thinks he can take it for granted. Callously ruling out support for the council owning the airport, Mr McCormack went on the record and said that this isn't a problem and it's not a problem for him. So Wagga Wagga should note that the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, who one would think is in a position of considerable influence with this government, has chosen not to support his local community and instead to support the very, very well-endowed bank balance of the Department of Defence. That is abrogating your responsibility for your community.
I was also fortunate to tour two facilities that were operated by Catholic Social Services, the Edel Quinn Shelter and the Micah Hub. I was able to chat with some of the inspiring workers and volunteers who make it their business to help those most needy in their communities. I want to put on the record that both these institutions are supported by Catholic Social Services, and people of faith are expressing their faith in practical action by supporting people in that community. These volunteers and workers let me know that the Drought Community Support Initiative was ended in June. This was a payment that was granted to charities like those that I visited, and its purpose was to provide immediate assistance to farmers, farm workers, farm suppliers and contractors who are facing hardship arising from the impact of drought. Let me remind you that I heard from these workers that the Drought Community Support Initiative was ended in June. It was ended in June by the government with a member for Riverina who lives in Wagga Wagga not standing up for his community and not supporting the community and the councillors who don't want to be paying $300,000 to the Department of Defence. And that same minister has refused to sort out this problem with the drying up of funds for people who need support from drought.
We've been told by local farmers that while the green hills of the Wagga Wagga area and the seat of Riverina are still there, providing some visual comfort to those who drive through and some action in their economy, we do know that there was very little soil moisture and we were told that as little as two hot, dry weeks would leave those fields in Riverina looking like much of the rest of New South Wales. That is a fragile economy. It is a fragile community, and there is no-one from the National Party standing up for them to support them in their time of need.
I also want to put on the record that I visited the town of Gundagai. Many of you would know the old song about the dog on the tuckerbox and would have heard of its recent demise due to some vandals. I'm pleased to report that the dog is back on its tuckerbox, but everything else is not all well in the town of Gundagai. I met with residents and local government representatives, and I was joined on a street walk by Councillor Charlie Sheahan, who is a local and was able to give me a great insight into that town. I heard about the Gundagai Show and I spoke to small-business owners like Ron Moses of Moeys, who talked to me about the changing retail conditions in regional New South Wales and the value of being a traditional shopfront in an increasingly impersonal world.
I was also privileged to have a coffee with the owners of the historic Niagara Cafe. This is the longest continuously operating Greek cafe in Australia, and it contains a treasure-trove of Labor Party history. It was, in fact, the site of a momentous Curtin war cabinet meeting in 1942. Apparently the proprietor was awoken at 1 am by soldiers, and the family rose and cooked a hearty meal of steak and eggs while the cabinet made a decision at that cafe in the main street of Gundagai to pull the troops out of Europe and move them into the Pacific theatre to protect our homeland. I want to express my profound thanks to Tony, Denise and Tina Loukassis for opening their cafe for us, for the lovely coffee and biscuits and for the opportunity to breathe the history that infuses their business. I was also able to meet with the mayor, Abb McAlister, and Councillors Leigh Bowden and Penny Nicholson who, with Charlie Sheahan, gave me insights into that whole town. We know that the failure of the council amalgamations to deliver real benefits for the people of Gundagai and the cost inefficiencies caused by amalgamation are a real concern to this community, but they are lacking representation here by Mr McCormack, who should be doing a much better job for the people of the bush. (Time expired)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:00): My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to yesterday's release of the NAB Monthly Business Survey for August 2019, where their chief economist, Alan Oster, said:
It looks like the tax cuts have had little impact on household consumption or have not been large enough to offset increasing weakness—
in the retail sector. When is the government going to take up or come up with a plan to boost an economy that is floundering on its watch?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): The only thing that is floundering, as I said yesterday, is Labor's socialist economic agenda, which was comprehensively rejected by the Australian people at the last election. There are always various comments that are issued by various banks. I could refer you to the UBS analysis, which has suggested that, in the September quarter, growth is expected to nearly double compared to the June quarter, on the back of our income tax cuts. You know what our income tax cuts have done? They've put $15 billion more money into workers' pockets. They have increased the take-home pay of workers around Australia. You would have thought that the Labor Party would say that's a good thing.
Of course the Australian economy is facing headwinds. Of course we are facing global economic headwinds. And other substantial economies around the world, like Germany, the United Kingdom and others, are actually going backwards. We are continuing to grow. The reason we're continuing to grow is because of our plan to build a stronger economy, and it's because fiscal policy and monetary policy are working in the same direction. As well as lower interest rates, we've got lower income taxes, we've got more investment in infrastructure and we've got an ambitious free-trade agenda helping our exporting businesses sell more Australian products and services around the world, which is very ably prosecuted by none other than the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, my good friend and colleague Senator Birmingham. We've got an ambitious agenda to reduce the regulatory burden on business to make it easier for business to be successful and hire more Australians.
Let me tell you: these sorts of questions show that the Australian Labor Party still does not accept the verdict of the Australian people at the last election. All of these arguments were put to the Australian people in the lead-up to the last election. And you know what? They opted for our plan of lower taxes—pro growth, pro business, pro jobs—and they voted against your socialist agenda and the politics of envy. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:02): Master Builders Australia agrees with NAB that tax cuts alone will not deal with weakness in the economy. MBA CEO Denita Wawn has told the AFR: 'What's urgently needed is an acceleration of infrastructure projects to the construction phase.' Why is the government ignoring calls to support the economy?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): Clearly, Senator Gallacher was provided a question by the tactics committee, and he clearly didn't listen to a single word I said in my primary answer. We are not suggesting that tax cuts are the only thing required to build a stronger economy into the future. Of course we are committed to investing more in infrastructure. That is why we have boosted infrastructure investment from $75 billion to $100 billion, and about half of that over the forward estimates.
Senator Wong: But you can't convince the MBA or the NAB. Are they socialists too?
Senator CORMANN: Here we go! You also didn't listen, Senator Wong, to my primary answer. The UBS, another bank, is predicting that there would be a near-doubling in economic growth in the September quarter on the back of personal income tax cuts. There are different analysts making different comments. But you know what? What will matter is what comes out at the end of the day when the September quarter results are released in early December.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question?
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:04): Why is the government so determined to ignore the NAB, the MBA and the Reserve Bank of Australia and even its own backbencher Senator Rennick? When will the government act to support an economy that is floundering on its watch?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): The only thing that this government will ignore is the floundering socialist economic agenda of the Labor Party which was so soundly rejected by the Australian people. We will continue to implement our plan for a stronger economy and for more jobs, with lower taxes—pro business, pro growth, pro opportunity, pro aspiration. As we know—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallacher?
Senator Gallacher: Mr President, I've listened carefully to your instructions about points of order, and I take you to standing order 72(3)(c). All it says there for our guidance is:
Answers shall be directly relevant to each question.
I hardly see how our conduct, as alleged by Senator Cormann, is directly relevant to the question I asked.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order—I may have prepared for this!—you are correct that ministers must be directly relevant. Using one word of a question does not make an answer to a question relevant to a question. However, it was a very open-ended question, Senator Gallacher, and, in that sense, the minister is being directly relevant to it.
Senator CORMANN: As I said yesterday, the Australian economy continues to grow, unlike many other economies around the world. More jobs are being created. A record number of Australians are in work. Wages growth in the 2018-19 financial year was the strongest it has been—2.3 per cent, above inflation at 1.6 per cent—since 2013-14, Labor's last budget year. Labor's socialist agenda is not only floundering with the Australian people; it's even floundering with the member for Port Adelaide, hardly a free-market, capitalist advocate.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Gallacher—
Senator Gallacher: On a point of order: Senator Cormann is misleading the house—
The PRESIDENT: I'm afraid time for the answer has expired. So one can't—
Senator Gallacher: There is no seat of Port Adelaide anymore.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:07): I'd like to draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's seventh delegation from the Republic of Korea. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Employment
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:07): My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister please advise the Senate how the Morrison government is delivering stability and certainty for Australians looking to find work through the Try, Test and Learn Fund?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:07): Thank you very much to Senator Askew for her question and her particular interest in removing barriers to employment for Australians who are looking for work. The Morrison government is absolutely committed to working with all Australians to break down the barriers that are preventing people who are on working-age payments to get off welfare and into a job. We are supporting them through a range of initiatives, including the one that Senator Askew mentioned, which is the $96 million Try, Test and Learn Fund. What we've been doing through this fund is trialling new and innovative ways to assist people on welfare with their pathway towards either education or employment.
One great example that is already on foot is the Work Work project run by Too Good kitchens in Sydney and Melbourne. This particular program employs mature-age women to gain financial independence and creates a pathway for them back into the workforce. These women will complete a 16-week, paid, on-the-job training program as kitchen assistants, and then, at the end of that, they are guaranteed six months paid work in one of the kitchens of Too Good.
I want to tell you about Tracey. Tracey is a 52-year-old, and she's been struggling with drug addiction for most of her life. Tracey joined the team on the Work Work project and, in her own words, 'has never looked back'. What Tracey said to us was: 'I've had trouble for a long time to get back into a job, but this program has really helped change things for me. I've made friends for life with these girls. It's so good for us'.
On this side of the chamber, we understand that Australians do face particular barriers to employment. Because of our strong and stable economy, we are able to afford to invest in programs like the Try, Test and Learn Fund, the one that has actually helped Tracey to get back into the workforce. We know—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston. The time for the answer has expired. Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:09): Can the minister update the Senate on the programs that the Morrison government is investing in to help young people get off welfare and into work?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:09): I thank Senator Askew for her follow-up question. I can advise this chamber that we've got over 30 programs through the Try, Test and Learn program agenda to help young people specifically and support them in their quest to get a job. One such program is the Fairbridge Leadership, Engagement and Development program, and it helps young people find a career path by exposing them to a number of different trades in the hope that they may be able to identify a particular work path that is going to be of interest to them, because we know that young people often don't know what they want to do because they don't know what is available to them. So, by exposing them to a range of different programs, we are hoping that they'll find one that they're interested in and, by accompanying these programs with literacy and numeracy support, counselling, mentoring and the like, we were able to assist them. Rory's mother, who is part of one of our ready-to-work programs, said that Rory has been given the opportunity to practise and learn a range of employability skills, and it'll mean he'll get a job. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a final supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:11): Minister, how are these programs changing the lives of the people involved?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:11): I'd like to tell you a story about Jacqueline, who participated in the Next Steps program run by HR Development at Work. This program gives older jobseekers a combination of training, mentoring and coaching to tackle some of the psychological challenges of unemployment. Jacqueline was made redundant at the end of last year. Jacqueline is 57. In her own words, she said she didn't feel as though she had any hope whatsoever of re-entering the workforce. Jacqueline has been part of the Next Steps program, and this is what she said after she had been successful in getting a job with the education department: 'To be told that you are the best candidate for the job is a huge boost to your self-esteem. I've now been working for over six weeks and absolutely love my job.' We understand Australians face barriers to work. That's why we're working with them with these programs to overcome them.
China
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:12): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. In 2016, an arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that many of China's claims to the South China Sea had no legal basis under international law. In 2016, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop, called on the Philippines and China to abide by the ruling. Does this remain the government's position?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:12): Yes, the government has been clear in stating our position in relation to the South China Sea, which is a waterway of significant priority for Australia, as all senators would be aware. The senator has outlined a number of aspects in relation to that, with which we have concurred in the past, and that continues to be the case.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:13): Last night, Liberal member of parliament Gladys Liu, the member for Chisholm, failed on three occasions to back in the arbitral tribunal's ruling. Why?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:13): As Senator Wong, one assumes, with the benefit of media monitoring, would be well aware, the member for Chisholm has issued a statement on this matter today. She has been clear in relation to the issues that were raised. She began her statement by saying:
Last night, in a TV interview, I was not clear and I should have chosen my words better. As a new member of Parliament, I will be learning from this experience.
Australia's long-standing position on the South China Sea is consistent and clear. We do not take sides on competing territorial claims but we call on all claimants to resolve …
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong on a point of order?
Senator Wong: A point of order on direct relevance.
Senator PAYNE: You can't be serious.
Senator Wong: I'm very serious.
Senator Abetz: That was exactly what Sam Dastyari said.
The PRESIDENT: Order, please! I would like to hear the point of order.
Senator Wong: I'm glad you brought up that precedent, Senator Abetz.
An opposition senator: Exactly.
Senator Wong: Exactly. Precisely.
An opposition senator: And you know what happened to him.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Can I hear the point of order, and then others will have the opportunity to contribute if they wish.
Senator Wong: The question is: why? It's not a question of: what statement did she subsequently issue? My question is: why did she fail on three occasions to restate the government's position?
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Payne?
Senator PAYNE: Mr President, on the point of order, the member for Chisholm's statement is perfectly clear. She indicates that in the interview she was not clear and that she should have chosen her words better.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Wong, you have reminded the minister of the question. I believe in this instance, with the statement the minister is making, that the minister is being directly relevant. There's an opportunity to debate questions and answers after question time, and I think that's the appropriate place if people are not satisfied with answers. Senator Payne, continue.
Senator PAYNE: I think I was at the point of the member for Chisholm's statement that says:
We do not take sides on competing territorial claims but we call on all claimants to resolve disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:15): What steps has this minister taken to ensure that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:15): Any suggestion that that is not the case is offensive. The member for Chisholm was duly elected as the representative of the people of Chisholm in the last election.
Climate Change
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:15): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Senator McKenzie. Minister, following on from Minister Littleproud's comments that climate change is irrelevant, he said yesterday, 'I don't know if climate change is man-made.' Following on from those comments, the Minister for the Environment, Minister Ley, said yesterday, 'I don't know if the fires have anything to do with climate change.' Minister, do you agree with Minister Littleproud's comments and Minister Ley's comments, or do you believe that humans are causing climate change and that climate change increases the frequency and severity of wildfires, putting the lives of Australians at risk?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:16): Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to see those comments directly.
Senator Whish-Wilson: They're in every newspaper in the country!
Senator McKENZIE: Well, I do apologise: I haven't been across the newspapers in the last couple of days. But I can answer the question. I believe in the science of climate change; I always have. I think the most important thing we need to focus on is ensuring that we take strong action on climate change. That is exactly what our government has been doing, with our Climate Solutions Fund and with a range of programs, across my own portfolio in agriculture and right across government, to assist lower emissions right across the economy so that we can meet our Paris targets and take strong action on climate change. That's what the Australian people voted for. That is what we as a government are taking very, very seriously.
But what I really struggle with, Senator Di Natale, at this point in time—and Senator Watt, I did have a chance to glance at Twitter over the last couple of days, and I saw you take Senator Di Natale to task on politicising the horrific bushfires that Queensland and New South Wales are going through right now, with volunteer firefighters, farmers, householders and business owners running for their livelihoods from the devastation these fires are wreaking—is that, rather than actually focusing on assisting that effort on the ground today, tomorrow and next week, you come in here day after day and waste your question on making cheap political points on whether our government takes climate change seriously. Well, we do. We signed up to the Paris Agreement. We have a whole suite of initiatives across every single portfolio to address it. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question?
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:18): Well, Minister, let's talk about the firefighters who have said that you don't find a climate change denier at the end of a firehose. Firefighters are very clear about this. I want to know: do you agree—and you still haven't answered the question—with your cabinet colleagues who deny a link between humans causing climate change and climate change resulting in bushfires, or do you agree with firefighters? In the words of the Prime Minister, whose side are you on?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:19): Oh, Senator Di Natale—another cheap, dramatic point. You'd think you'd actually have some sensible questions here on policy, but no. I don't know how often I can say it: I accept the science of climate change. I am a cabinet minister in a government that takes climate change seriously. We have a $3.5 billion climate reduction fund. We have set an emissions reduction target of 26 per cent to 28 per cent on 2005 levels through the Paris agreement, and right across the economy we've got a suite of initiatives to ensure that we meet that target.
We're committed to taking strong action, because things are changing. Farmers are dealing with a changing and variable climate each and every day. You can see that their seasons are changing. When they may have done silage at the end of November in Gippsland, the timing has now been moved. Lambing seasons have changed et cetera. So their practices are changing on farms. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question?
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:20): Minister, it's the firefighters who are speaking up right now, because it's their lives on the line. Indeed, Lee Johnson, who was in charge of Queensland's fire service, has said that the weather conditions they're now facing are unheard of. He said: 'You can’t actually fight it. The heat generated means you can’t put people or equipment in front of these fires.' Minister, given that firefighters are speaking up right now, why did your government disband the Secretaries Group on Climate Risk, who were preparing for catastrophes just like this one?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:21): Senator Di Natale: if we took your approach to addressing climate change, we'd shut everything down tomorrow and do you know what? The fires would still be going and the volunteers would still be having to find non-existent water from empty dams because of drought. So, despite your protestations, it's a flaccid argument—it really is; absolutely. The reality is that, if we took your approach and closed everything down, the fire would still be burning, the firefighters would still be in danger, as would our farms—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, on a point of order?
Senator Di Natale: My point of order is on relevance again. The question was very clear. I asked why the government disbanded the Secretaries Group on Climate Risk, who were preparing for climate catastrophes like the one we're experiencing right now.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order: Senator McKenzie, you have been speaking for half the answer. There has been some liberality in issues raised, but I will ask you to turn to the question.
Senator McKENZIE: In terms of the secretaries group that you speak of, I'll have to take that aspect of the question on notice. But I can speak for my own secretary in the Department of Agriculture, who is absolutely focused on rolling out a suite of initiatives and programs throughout the Department of Agriculture's suite of programs to address and mitigate climate change.
Health
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:22): My question is to Senator Cash, the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Can the minister advise the Senate how a strong economy enables the Morrison government to provide the certainty and stability of a world-class health system? Is the minister aware of any recent milestones that support these successes?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:23): I thank Senator Smith for the question. I'm pleased to report that the Morrison government continues to translate our strong economic management into delivering record outcomes for Australians when it comes to the Australian health system. Australia has, without a doubt, one of the best health systems in the world, and key to ensuring the success of this system is of course Medicare.
I'm proud to inform the Senate that last week Australia reached a record high bulk-billing rate of 86.2 per cent in the 2018-19 year. This is the fourth consecutive quarter to reach a record high. In the last year, patients made 136.5 million bulk-billed GP visits. That is an increase of over three million from the previous year. Across the whole health system, Australians accessed 335.8 million bulk-billed services, including GP, specialist, pathology and diagnostic imaging services. That's an increase of over 8.9 million on the previous record set last year. These figures show that Medicare under the Morrison government is supporting the health and wellbeing of Australians more than ever.
This is just the beginning of the Morrison government's support for our health system. On 1 July this year the government increased the patient rebate for further GP items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The Medicare Benefits Schedule review will ensure Medicare services are effective and appropriate for patients now and into the future. This investment in our health system is only possible because the Morrison government understands the importance of a strong economy and the dividends that a strong economy can give to the Australian people.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:25): Can the minister advise the Senate whether this success extends to listing life-saving medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:25): Yes, indeed it does. In fact, I believe that this is one of the proudest achievements of the Morrison government. Again, it is an achievement that is only made possible by ensuring a strong economy. This is one of the greatest dividends that you can give to the Australian people—listing a drug on the PBS. In the month of August, the Morrison government invested a further $40 million for two new listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, commencing on 1 September. For example, we've listed Buvidal, a medicine that allows patients who are receiving medical, social and psychological support to manage the withdrawal symptoms and cravings that arise from opiate dependency. Over 110,000 Australians are struggling with this, and there were 1,119 deaths in 2016. Life-saving medicines can only be listed, like we're doing, because of the strong economy.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:26): Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:26): Senator Watt is right—this is not a proud achievement of your government, Senator Watt. This is not a proud achievement of the former Labor government. Why? Because, Senator Watt, you stopped listing life-saving drugs on the PBS. You stopped, as a government, listing life-saving drugs on the PBS because you did not, as a political party, understand the benefits of a strong economy. In 2011 the party that you belong to, when it was in government, had to put in black and white in the 2011 budget papers that the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. And guess what, colleagues: fiscal circumstances under the coalition government have permitted the listing of life-saving drugs on the PBS. We will always understand the benefits of a strong economy, in particular when it comes to listing life-saving drugs— (Time expired)
Defence Procurement
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Defence. I'm sure the minister is aware that there are a number of companies under her portfolio who appear not to be paying tax. I'll give an example from tax transparency data. BAE Systems Australia Holdings Limited, over the four years of tax transparency data, had an income of $3.9 billion and paid zero dollars in tax. What assessments, if any, has your department made of the tax practices of large Defence contractors, who appear to be experts in minimising their tax payments here in Australia?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:28): I thank Senator Patrick for the question. I'm sure Senator Patrick will be delighted to know that from 1 July this year, under recent changes to Defence policy, tenderers must provide a certificate, from either the ATO or its foreign equivalent, of their tax standing. This also applies now to first-tier contractors, and companies cannot tender without it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:29): Is it not the case that the defence department is signing contracts directly with companies registered in tax havens? Is it not the case, for example, that Defence has a contract, with a value of almost $500 million, with Intelsat LLC of 90 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke, Hamilton, Bermuda? What measures does Defence have in place to ensure Defence does not engage contractors registered in identified tax havens?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:29): I thank Senator Patrick for that question. Normally, I would have thought, that question would have gone to the representative of the Treasurer in this house. However, I am very proud of this government's record in getting multinationals to pay their fair share of tax. We are global leaders in the international fight against corporate and multinational tax avoidance. In fact, Senator Patrick might be interested to know that since 1 July 2016 the ATO has raised about $13.5 billion in tax liabilities alleged against large public corporations and multinationals. Of that amount of money, $8.6 billion in tax liabilities is from multinationals.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Patrick on a point of order.
Senator Patrick: Mr President, the burden of my question went to the measures taken to avoid contracting companies in tax havens.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order: to be directly relevant to the question, one must be relating to part of the question asked. Context is always available to ministers, but I'll remind the minister, as Senator Patrick has reminded her, of the specific nature of the question.
Senator REYNOLDS: I suspect Senator Patrick didn't hear the answer to his first question, because I actually answered the question very clearly in relation to the defence department, and I'll repeat what I said in answer to the first question: from 1 July this year, under recent changes by this government to defence policy, tenderers are to provide certificates of satisfactory— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question?
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:31): It is not unlawful for Defence to sign a contract with an entity in a tax haven, and they can fill in the forms and they can still be awarded the contract. But I don't think it's acceptable for most Australians, who want companies to contribute to our social structure, to our defence and so forth. What are you doing specifically in relation to preventing us encouraging contracts with entities in tax havens?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:31): Noting most of that was a statement rather than a question, I will refer you to my first answer: that this minister, under this government, has changed defence policy to ensure that we do validations of the good standing, the taxation standing, of companies that we do business with.
Defence Procurement
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister please update the Senate on Australia's submarine capabilities?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:32): I very much thank Senator Hughes for that question. I can confirm for all in this chamber that the Morrison government is absolutely committed to the security, stability and prosperity of Australia. That's why this government is investing $90 billion in our national shipbuilding endeavour. We are an island nation. We rely on maritime trade for our prosperity, and that trade requires a secure maritime environment. With an estimated 300 submarines expected to be operating in the Indo-Pacific region by 2035, submarines are an enduringly important strategic capability for Australia.
Today that capability is very ably provided by a fleet of six Collins class submarines that is providing extraordinary service to our nation. Three of the six submarines are consistently available now for tasking, with one in shorter-term maintenance and two in long-term maintenance and upgrades. The Collins class submarines incorporate the most advanced technology of any conventional submarine and continue to excel in their operations in a way that should make all Australians incredibly proud.
We are now pursuing the next generation of submarine, the Attack class, which is the centrepiece of our naval shipbuilding enterprise. Like Collins, the Attack class submarine will retain that competitive edge in our submarine capability in future. But, as we construct 12 new Attack class submarines, this government will be putting in place a very prudent transition plan to ensure that the effective operation of our submarine fleet in this increasingly contested environment remains in place. The delivery of our submarine capability is a key priority of government, and it is my most solemn of duties to make sure that this project is delivered and we receive the capability our nation requires.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:34): Can the minister update the Senate on the government's plan to maintain an effective Collins submarine?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:34): Yes, I can, Senator Hughes. The Collins class submarine continues to achieve Royal Australian Navy requirements. The Collins class submarine is technically only halfway through its life and remains a highly potent and capable platform. But, to manage the transition between the Collins class and the delivery of the first Attack class, we will conduct life-of-type extensions to the Collins class submarines. That's why this government will continue to sustain the fleet with a regime of intermediate and mid- and full-cycle dockings. This means that the Collins class submarines are spending more days at sea today than ever before. They're conducting more exercises and are participating in more operations that directly contribute to our nation's defence capability and our security. The government has 12 active Collins-related major capital projects, including communication upgrades and sonar upgrades, which will continue to extend the life of the Collins and continue to make it a capability that Australia requires. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:35): Can the minister update the Senate on the government's commitment to incorporating local content into the future submarine program?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:35): Thank you very much, Senator Hughes. I can assure the Senate that this government is absolutely focused on maximising the level of industry involvement in all our shipbuilding programs. The Morrison government is the first government to put faith in the Australian defence industry as a fundamental input to capability. It is in our nation's interest that all states and territories are capable of contributing to the shipbuilding and sustainment endeavour—that all states contribute. And 15,000 Australian workers will be at the forefront of modern naval ship design and construction practices, creating new opportunities for defence and adjacent industries. Our Attack class program will be built upon a framework of agreements between Naval Group and ASC which identifies ways that both can collaborate to support Australia's sovereign submarine capability. Mandating a minimum proportion of Australian industry is actually counterproductive, as it focuses on measurements rather than a proper industry engagement to that sovereign— (Time expired)
Superannuation
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Finance, representing the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Cormann. In a recent column titled 'Tax office threat to self-managed super funds', Robert Gottliebsen raises concerns about the ATO's latest campaign to investigate SMSFs. Gottliebsen wrote that the ATO has sent letters to almost 20,000 of these funds saying:
Our records indicate that your … investment strategy may hold 90 per cent or more of its funds in one asset, or a single asset class—
such as property. The ATO states that this may not meet the diversification requirement and the superannuation industry regulations, risking an administrative penalty of $4,200. They then demand that a detailed investment strategy be provided to allay the ATO's concerns. Minister, how has the ATO selected these SMSFs for investigation? What is the basis of the 'no more than 90 per cent of funds in one asset or single asset class' diversification requirement, and where is this fixed percentage of 90 per cent found in the superannuation law or regulation?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): I thank Senator Bernardi for that question. As the regulator for self-managed super funds, the ATO has responsibility to ensure that trustees comply with their obligations and the super laws, one of which is to have an investment strategy that has given due consideration to a number of risks, including the risk of inadequate diversification. The action referred to in the article relates to recent ATO correspondence in writing to approximately three per cent of SMSF trustees and their auditors who had invested 90 per cent or more in a single asset or asset class and had used a limited-recourse borrowing arrangement to acquire that asset.
The ATO's intention was to raise awareness of investment strategy obligations. The ATO focused on this group following concerns raised in a report by the Council of Financial Regulators and the ATO to government in relation to leverage and risk in the superannuation system in February this year. This report highlighted concerns that less diversified self-managed super funds with limited-recourse borrowing arrangements are exposed to asset concentration risk which, in the event of a fall in the asset price, could lead to a significant loss in the value of the fund. But the ATO's records show that these SMSFs may hold 90 per cent or more of funds in one asset or a single asset class, and as regulator for SMSFs the ATO thought it appropriate to raise awareness of the investment strategy obligations. I can advise the Senate that the ATO did not demand that a detailed investment strategy be provided to the ATO. The letter simply requested that trustees review their investment strategy.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question?
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:39): Thank you, Minister. I'm heartened by your assurance that a detailed investment strategy was not demanded, contrary to the article. But many SMSFs are set up to hold primarily the real estate assets that fund members operate their businesses from. These business owners do not have the time or resources to respond to fishing expeditions or heavy-handed bureaucratic letters like this one from the ATO. Minister, when making these requests of SMSFs, what oversight do you provide, or does the government provide, to the ATO?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:40): As I said in my primary answer, the ATO is the regulator, obviously, and acts independently as an independent statutory agency. The ATO has responsibility to ensure trustees comply with their obligations and the super laws, and one of those laws requires super fund trustees to have an investment strategy in place that has given due consideration to a number of risks, including the risk of inadequate diversification.
The government support giving retirees and those planning for their retirement the choice about whether to invest in a commercial fund or an industry fund or manage their own investments via an SMSF investment vehicle. But, as I noted before, the ATO has not requested any additional reporting. It is a requirement under the super laws that all SMSF trustees must have an investment strategy that considers diversification risk, which auditors review annually as part of the annual audit. The letter from the ATO is a part of the ATO's campaign to assist SMSFs in meeting their regulatory obligations and protecting their superannuation. In addition, the ATO— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question?
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:41): Minister, I raised in Senate estimates last October further evidence of the ATO's heavy-handed regulation of SMSFs, and the commissioner undertook to revisit the ATO's program of establishment queries and, not knowing when it was last reviewed, undertook to 'look at the process to make sure it's fit and proper, as the ATO don't want people thinking this is somehow an inquisition of them'. Minister, this latest action by the ATO makes many in SMSFs feel like there is an inquisition. Has the ATO review been done? If so, what were its key findings and how will they affect ATO practices and SMSF red tape going forward?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:42): Thank you very much, Senator Bernardi, for that supplementary. In relation to the review that was previously requested by Senator Bernardi, I can advise that, in February 2018, the ATO completed an internal review of the 'secure front door' program. The ATO revisited this review in October 2018, following questions raised by Senator Bernardi at the October 2018 budget estimates. In November 2018 the ATO undertook further consultation on the 'secure front door' process with the Tax Practitioner Stewardship Group. The Tax Practitioner Stewardship Group were supportive of the current process and felt there was no need to ensure an alternative engagement regime.
The ATO also reviewed its audit processes and supporting guidance material for staff, as well as analysing closed cases, requests for reviews of decisions and complaints. The ATO found no systemic issues, I'm advised, or deficiencies in the ATO's operational processes, including client interactions. There were no formal complaints regarding the conduct of SMSF registration interviews. The initial review and the ATO's subsequent reconsideration of the 'secure front door' case selection and audit processes subsequently found them fit for purpose.
China
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. On 18 August Senator Wong wrote to the minister requesting comprehensive and detailed briefings for parliamentarians by relevant agencies on Australia's relationship with China. After receiving no response, Senator Wong formally reiterated the request last Friday. The request was made in the interests of ensuring all parliamentarians are well briefed to contribute to a necessary discussion about how we can make our relationship with China work for us. Will the government provide detailed and comprehensive briefings to parliamentarians as requested?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:43): I thank Senator Kitching for her question. As I have said publicly previously, in responding to the statement made by the opposition—initially on, I think, the Insiders program on a Sunday morning—I am not persuaded that there is a need for the suggestion that those opposite have made. As we know, all members of parliament and senators, including those in the opposition, are able to join relevant committees such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security or the foreign affairs, defence and trade committees, all of which get extensive briefings from agencies. The shadow minister for foreign affairs is very well aware of that. She sat on those committees for years, although I do understand that, due to internal Labor arrangements at the moment, she is not currently on the PJCIS. That is the assessment that the government has made and the position that we've taken.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:44): In this morning's Australian, the minister is quoted as saying, in respect of Australia's relationship with China, 'The PM and I are already leading a mature discussion.' Given the minister's website indicates her last public interview was 14 days ago, when did the minister last make even a cursory contribution to the discussion the minister claims to be leading?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:45): I'd be more than happy to provide Senator Kitching with a copy of a number of media statements, transcripts, social media statements and contents of speeches on those matters. As those opposite are well aware, these are issues which need to be handled in an appropriate and mature way, and that is what the government is doing.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:45): I note the answer to the first supplementary, but, Minister, how do you lead a discussion when you don't really say anything?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:45): I understand the frustrations of being in opposition, and they are ones which we on this side are never keen to revisit. Frankly, that is why the results of 18 May are so important for the people of Australia. As I have said, very clearly, on a number of issues, including those which have been raised by the opposition, that is what the government is doing.
Gas Industry
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Can the minister please advise the Senate how the Liberal-National government is working to reduce gas prices? What is the importance of stability and certainty in this industry for Australian families and businesses?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:46): I thank Senator McMahon for her question. It's a very important question, because the availability and price of gas in Australia is not only important for many Australians to heat and cook in their own homes; it also underpins thousands of jobs—tens of thousands of jobs—in businesses that have very high expenses in term of gas use, so price is extremely important to protect those jobs. To protect those jobs, the Liberal-National government took action a couple of years ago to help lower gas prices.
At the time, gas prices had peaked. There were some shortages, particularly in southern Australia. At the time I and the then minister for industry, Senator Sinodinos, announced a new mechanism, the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which for the first time was able to restrict gas exports to protect those jobs in Australia. Since that time, gas prices in eastern Australia have fallen considerably. At the time, in early 2017, the spot gas price in Brisbane was $12.15 a gigajoule. Last month it averaged $5.16—a 42 per cent reduction. In southern Australia, in Sydney, prices have fallen 28 per cent, from $11.53 two years ago to $8.28 last month. In Adelaide and Victoria, there have been 20 per cent price reductions as well. We now have a situation where prices in Victoria and Adelaide, in particular, are higher than those in Queensland because the gas is being produced in Queensland and it costs a significant amount to transport the gas long distances.
What we need is for the Victorian government and other governments in New South Wales and South Australia to remove unnecessary restrictions on gas production. To protect those jobs, we need to have a supply of gas. If we don't have the gas supply, gas prices will be higher than they need to be and people's jobs will be at greater risk than they need to be. We in this chamber are on the side of jobs. We are on the side of manufacturing industries. That's why we're getting behind gas production. That's why we've maintained a situation where Australian gas is— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator McMahon, a supplementary question?
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:48): What opportunities are on the horizon for the development of gas in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:49): I recognise Senator McMahon is a big advocate for the development of her territory. The Darwin area and the broader surrounds of the Northern Territory have enormous potential. While gas production is being unnecessarily restricted in some parts of Australia, finally, finally, finally the Northern Territory government has opened up that possibility in northern Australia. It's a huge opportunity for our country. There is something like 180,000 petajoules of gas in the Northern Territory. We use about 500 petajoules of gas per year in eastern Australia. So there's potentially 200-odd years supply of gas in the Northern Territory alone. It's our first major shale gas basin in Australia. We can all see what shale gas has done for the manufacturing industry in the US and jobs in the US, and I want to have those kinds of jobs here in Australia. I know Senator McMahon wants a manufacturing industry in Darwin. That's why we've taken steps to introduce a national gas reservation scheme which will see gas produced here in Australia stay in Australia and support Australian jobs and Australian manufacturing industry.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question?
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:50): What would be the consequences of failing to develop Australia's gas resources?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:50): That would be bad news for our manufacturing industry. We in the Liberal-National government support manufacturing in Australia. We support workers and we support jobs—we support them in the mining sector; we support them in the manufacturing sector; we support them in the agricultural sector; we support them around the country—because we know that providing people with the opportunity to have a job to provide for their families is the best thing we can do as a government for their families and their lives. That's why we're supporting the development of these gas resources.
If we don't do that, we're going to have more decisions like the one that has happened in southern Australia with Coogee Chemicals, who have had to leave the Victorian market because of the high gas prices, because of the Victorian government's refusal to develop their own resources in their own state. They are now looking to move to Darwin, where the gas resources will be, potentially, in the future. That is great news. I met with Coogee Chemicals last week to discuss those plans and make sure they can take advantage of our resolve to use Australian gas in Australia first to provide those Australian jobs. We are committed to doing that. We will build manufacturing industry in this country. We just need state governments to get on board with this agenda too.
Asylum Seekers
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:51): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd, the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, and the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, have all called on the government to use ministerial discretion and allow Priya, Nades and their two children to return to their home in the rural Queensland community of Biloela. Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the pleas of rural members of parliament? Are Mr O'Dowd, Mr Joyce and Dr Haines wrong?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:51): I refer the honourable senator to a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in 2013, and that is that no-one who arrives in Australia by boat without a visa will be permanently settled in Australia.
Senator Kim Carr: That's not true! We know that's not true!
An honourable senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! He was directly answering, yes. Senator Cormann.
Senator CORMANN: So here we go. We are committed to protecting the integrity of our borders, and we are committed to protecting vulnerable people from being again submitted to the vile trade of the people smugglers. We are not doing anything other than applying the law and acting consistently with what governments of both persuasions have said in the past—because the Deputy Prime Minister who, in 2013, said that no-one who comes to Australia by boat without a visa would be settled in Australia was none other than the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Anthony Albanese. In fact, the Labor Party in 2013 was running adverts—which were supposedly targeting people smugglers but were being run in Australia in the lead-up to the 2013 election—making the point that no-one who arrived in Australia by boat without a visa would be permanently settled in Australia. That was the right judgement at the time, that remains the right judgement now and that is the judgement that the Prime Minister and this government will stick to.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Green, a supplementary question?
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:53): Radio broadcaster Alan Jones from rural Queensland said that the Biloela family are 'good, hardworking people contributing to a regional community' and 'should not be deported'. Mr Jones also said: 'I have written to the Prime Minister. There's been no response.' Is Mr Jones wrong? Will the Prime Minister respond to Mr Jones?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:53): I am confident that the Prime Minister regularly corresponds with and talks to Mr Jones. But, leaving that to one side, the case that the honourable senator is referencing has been comprehensively reviewed—not just by the government but by several courts—ever since they arrived here, without a visa, by boat, illegally, in 2012, and they've been found not to be valid refugees. They've been found not to be asylum seekers. In fact, every court up to the High Court—
Senator Watt: My point of order is on relevance. Senator Cormann ignored the first question. Is he going to answer this question, which is whether Mr Alan Jones is wrong?
The PRESIDENT: With all due respect, Senator Watt, it is entirely in order for the minister to respond to some of the quotations used too. In my notes of the question, the minister is being directly relevant to the other assertions made in the question, and you've reminded him of the third part of the question.
Senator CORMANN: The Prime Minister and our government will continue to uphold the law because to do otherwise would put the people smugglers back into it business. It would again give them a product to sell and would again put vulnerable people at risk. Of course, the last time Labor went weak at the knees, 1,200 people died at sea.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Green, a final supplementary question?
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:55): Biloela local Angela Fredericks is in Canberra today and is present in the gallery. She is here to present a petition of more than a quarter of a million signatures from Australians who call on the minister to use his discretion and help this rural community reunite with Nades, Priya and their two beautiful girls. Will the Prime Minister meet with Ms Fredericks and listen to her rural community?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:55): Firstly, these decisions are made in accordance with the law and focus on Australia's national interests. That is how we will continue to make these judgements. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the Australian government has made a judgement that was confirmed by the courts, again and again, all the way up to the High Court, since 2012. In relation to the other part of the question, I will take it on notice.
Trade
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. Minister, how is the government delivering certainty for Australian exporters by growing export markets, including seeking a free trade agreement with the European Union?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): I thank Senator Fawcett for his question and, as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, for his very strong interest and advocacy in relation to trade, business, export growth and, of course, across the Foreign Affairs and Defence portfolios.
In relation to Australia's negotiations with the European Union, we seek an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement. We do so because the EU offers a potential market of more than half a billion customers to Australian businesses. Despite very significant trade restrictions that those Australian businesses already face, the EU is our second-largest trading partner and a significant export partner already. So the scope for growth is real if we can manage to see removal and reduction of tariffs and an increase or elimination of quota volumes.
What is really important is to make sure we get a great deal for our farmers and businesses, and the coalition government are committed to do that, as we have in all of our other trade negotiations. Industry knows this. We have been pleased with the reaction from industry as we have worked through this. The Australia-EU Red Meat Market Access Taskforce has described this FTA as a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity'. The Business Council of Australia has identified opportunities for farmers and businesses in relation to government procurement markets.
Trade sustains one in five Australian jobs, and the opportunity that we seek to realise is to keep those jobs and to grow further employment opportunities in the future. Businesses such as Almondco, in our state of South Australia, Senator Fawcett, or Premium Fresh in Tasmania, or Macadamias Direct, in subtropical northern New South Wales are the types of businesses who have identified that they can gain by growing market access into the European Union. They would have the ability to export more goods and, in exporting more goods, ensure an increase in revenue into Australia, create more jobs, sustain more jobs, pay more taxes and create the opportunities that will make Australia stronger into the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:58): Minister, you are aware that the European Union has required that we issue a list of geographical indicators that they wish to protect. That has caused concern amongst some of my constituents, particularly people in the dairy industry. Can you outline the process that the government has taken with this and reassure them that our approach will support our interests?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:59): As part of our negotiations, we have recently published a list of EU requested terms. There are 236 terms relating to spirits products and 172 relating to agricultural or other food names. In publishing this, it is important to identify, firstly, what's not on the list, because there were a number of concerns that existed in relation to this.
We are not being asked to protect a number of names that our dairy industry, in particular, had been concerned about—for example, brie, mozzarella, edam, gouda, pecorino, provolone, cheddar and, of course, camembert. We do acknowledge, though, that there are concerns in relation to products such as feta and parmesan. These are genuine concerns, and I emphasise we have made no commitments to the EU other than to publish this list of names—no commitments. We want to hear directly from Australian industry so that we can advocate emphatically on their behalf. That's why I have been visiting and meeting with many dairy industry representatives. We will continue to make sure that we get the best possible— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (15:00): Can the minister inform the Senate of the latest trade statistics and what they show about the government's plan for strong economic growth?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:00): We continue to pursue these negotiations. They are about building on a proven method of success. Our trade agreements have created record levels of exports and record trade surpluses for Australia, and it's because of the network of free trade agreements that we as a nation have struck with the North Asian economies of Japan, Korea and China through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Of course, we should never forget that those opposite said of the TPP that we should just give up and walk away when the United States gave up on it. But we didn't. We negotiated, we secured the deal and, in doing so, we've struck the first ever opportunities for trade agreements between Australia and Mexico and between Australia and Canada, as well as ensured continued elimination of trade barriers for many of our goods that have seen our good exports to China, Japan, Korea and ASEAN countries all grow significantly compared with the previous year. There is strong growth right across these markets, fuelling job opportunities and a stronger economy for all Australians. (Time expired)
Senator Cormann: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Climate Change
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:01): I want to tidy up one of my answers in response to a question from Senator Di Natale. The Secretaries Group on Climate Risk was looking at issues primarily related to Public Service administration, in particular whether agencies were appropriately considering climate risk in performing their functions and whether APS staff had the capability to assess and manage climate risk. The group stopped meeting in March 2018, as typically secretaries groups on specific issues are established for a limited time, with their work then progressing into business-as-usual arrangements. In addition, the Australian Government Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group is continuing the work of the secretaries group.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Economy
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:02): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Gallagher today relating to living standards and the economy.
After six very long years of the Liberals running the country's economy, what we've seen in their third term is a repeat of their lacklustre performance in this area over the previous six years. The government have no plan to turn around the economy. Wage growth has hit a record low of 0.6 per cent. We know that the net debt has more than doubled, and we've actually crashed through to the half-trillion-dollar mark with our gross debt. We know that the living standards of Australians have fallen dramatically, with the first per capita income recession in over a decade. Economic growth is slowing, with the IMF expecting growth to fall further to 2.1 per cent this year. The outlook is full of gloom.
Working Australians and their families are suffering under this lacklustre government. But, as usual, what do we see from those opposite? We see their arrogance, the arrogance not to even listen and heed the warning that is being expressed throughout the community on the economy and how that's hurting everyday Australians. The big mantra we saw from the government during the last term was all about giving away their $80 billion handout to multinational companies and $17 billion to big business and to big banks. Australia is in a crisis when it comes to housing affordability and homelessness, and this government, who have a responsibility to ensure all Australians have the opportunities they so richly deserve, is ignoring middle Australia. We on this side of the chamber are asking: why can you not articulate an economic plan? Is it because you're just too arrogant and lazy or is the truth that you don't have any idea and you have no plan? You didn't actually take a plan for the economy to the last election. You managed to win—and, yes, you can gloat about that; congratulations, it's always better to be on that side of the chamber—but with that comes enormous responsibility.
Our economy is floundering. People are hurting. More and more people are ending up homeless. The biggest cohort of people finding themselves homeless are older women, and we see nothing from those opposite. Business are calling out, because they have no confidence. You can't just rely on tax cuts, because there is still concern about whether or not people are actually going to spend the tax cuts that we pass through this place. I can tell you, when I walk around where I live in Launceston and throughout other places in Tasmania, there is a real downturn in retail, and it's not just about the internet; it's about the fact that people don't have confidence. People just aren't spending, because they don't know what's ahead of them. You have NAB senior economist Gareth Spence telling John Stanley it could take time to really discover whether Australians will spend their tax cuts and, I quote, 'But I guess we're getting increasingly worried that we've seen very little evidence of a significant boost from the tax cuts.'
That's what this government have been relying on. It has all been about tax cuts. You need to do a lot more than just that. Over the last six years you've really been all about attacking those who can least afford it. You're all about a tax on unions and working Australians. You cut penalty rates. None of these things that you have been so prominently advocating for have helped the economy. In fact, where are all the jobs that you said would be created once penalty rates were cut? There aren't any. There are none in the hospitality sector at all. There has been no evidence of what you tried to tell the Australian people—that, if we cut penalty rates, everything will be all right; the reality is that it hasn't been. You are forcing families to take on not only a second job but also in many cases a third. You are the government; you have responsibility. (Time expired)
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (15:08): I take great pride in standing here today and defending what the government's record is delivering, particularly when it comes to the economy, and taking note of the answer that the Minister for Finance gave on the issue of the economy. He spoke about the national accounts, which show that the Australian economy has completed its 28th consecutive year of economic growth, a record unmatched by any developed economy, as a reminder of the economy's remarkable resilience and a repudiation of those who try and talk it down. He spoke about the investment into infrastructure. In my own home state of Western Australia we have a record level of investment, part of that $100 billion of infrastructure that's going on across Australia. I want to talk about the $349 million investment in the Tonkin Highway upgrades, not far from where I live. This very busy road is a freight route, and earlier in the year at a major intersection there was a tragic vehicle accident where a woman was killed. With the investment in infrastructure on this particular road, they're putting a grade separation that's going to ensure those sorts of accidents possibly won't occur. That's a $349 million commitment to the Tonkin Highway.
There's a $208 million commitment for the removal of level crossings at Oats Street, Welshpool Road and Mint Street. That's going to make a big difference to the commuting times of people getting to work and, importantly, getting home at the end of the day. They can get home in a timely way and in a safe fashion. There is a $149 million commitment to the Albany Ring Road. This is a very important project. Those local to that area know that this is something that has been called for for a long time.
It is because of the strong economy and the record of this government that we are able to deliver such important projects, projects that communities across my state of Western Australia are desperate to see, including the Bunbury Outer Ring Road. We have a $122 million commitment to the Bunbury Outer Ring Road and a $115 million commitment to upgrade the Fremantle Traffic Bridge.
The government is allocating $535 million to projects from the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, including $248 million for the Karratha to Tom Price corridor and $75 million for the Alice Springs to Halls Creek corridor. This is only possible because of the difficult decisions that we've had to make as a government. Minister Cormann took us through some of the difficult decisions that had to be made. We are able to deliver a strong economy because of those difficult decisions.
These numbers do not incorporate the passage through the parliament of the most significant tax cuts in more than 20 years and the full impact of the 50-basis-point reduction in interest rates. We're yet to see with the current accounts the impact of that tax relief that's coming to family households. If you speak to people out in the communities, as we've done over the break, they have already received that extra refund from the ATO. It's making a difference in people's lives. People are able to make a better contribution to their own families. Isn't that right, Senator Van? They have in their pockets more of what they earned. This is what we're committed to doing.
Australia is not immune to the fallout of global trade tensions, and we're certainly not complacent. But with strong foundations our economy is positioned as well as any nation to withstand these challenges. This is not an easy time for economies all over the world. Germany, the UK and Singapore, among others, have recorded negative growth in the June quarter. However, in setting out the budget, we anticipated the economic challenges ahead and put in place significant tax cuts and infrastructure spending. Together with the 50 basis points, the tax cuts and the improving housing market will be reflected in the September quarter onwards. We're looking forward to seeing the results as they come out in the next quarter, because there's no doubt—we are sure—that the plans and what the government has been doing will have a big impact.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:13): We saw Senator Gallacher ask Minister Cormann in question time about the economy, but the reality is that the figures show that business confidence in this country is dropping and is so low that businesses in the north have had to travel here to remind the parliament—to talk to the Prime Minister and ministers—about the serious needs of businesses, in particular in northern Australia. NAB chief economist Alan Oster said that it looks like the tax cuts have had little impact on household consumption or have not been large enough to offset increasing weakness in the retail sector.
This isn't about hitting the government over the head constantly just for the fun of it. The reality is that people out there are suffering desperately. Wages growth—or lack thereof—is impacting family lives. We hear senators stand up in this chamber to talk about the importance of having a family, having a house and being able to raise your children. Senators, let me tell you that there are thousands of Australians in this country who certainly want to do that and who desperately need to do that. But when they are on Newstart without any increase at all, or when they are on CDP, the Community Development Program, receiving $11 an hour, how can they? When people in our businesses in the retail sector—the workers who lose their penalty rates—cannot look after their families, that is what you're talking about—the Australians who are missing out in this country, the Australians who need to know that this parliament and this government care. Instead, you block your ears, you block your hearts and you close your eyes. You do not want to see the impact of withholding all that you do, in terms of the amount of money that can flow to these families across this country. You withhold that, and you give all sorts of reasons in this Senate why you should.
You talk about your tax cuts, but we know that they are not being felt. We've heard from the economists. We've seen the data in August in relation to the wages situation. Let's have a look at the families on CDP in this country: 33,000 people. We were told during the last term of government that you would find 6,000 jobs for those 33,000 people. Where are those jobs? Those same people are still on $11 an hour. How can they look after their families? How can they afford groceries and power bills or to put fuel in their vehicles? And now you talk about changes to other social payments and you want to drug-test those people? You are pushing the poorest people—the most disadvantaged people in this country—even further down, and you refuse to see it.
If we are so successful in this country with the kind of surplus that you're pushing for, it's not showing. It is not showing in the lives of these Australians. It is not showing in the infrastructure that we require in northern Australia. Infrastructure Australia provides millions of dollars in southern Australia. But, in the north, we are desperate for the support to build the roads we need so that those people who live out on those farming properties in the Barkly, in Central Australia and over in the VRD region can get their cattle to market and get their families to school. They're the Australians that we need you to focus on. Don't come in here and say that there isn't a problem with wages in this country; there is a very big problem, and you are continually enabling the disadvantage of those Australians. (Time expired)
Senator VAN (Victoria) (15:18): We've heard a lot about jobs in relation to this motion. What the senator should be taking note of is that wages have increased across the economy by 2.3 per cent in the past year. So, while the inflation rate is only 1.6 per cent, wages are going up in very real terms. As the senator should know, wages can only go up when conditions are set that way. And, with the headwinds we're facing, our economy is very well set to perform better than all others. As my good colleague Senator O'Sullivan just said, the economy is not immune from the global trade tensions. They will have, and are having, an effect on all economies, but the Australian economy is far more resilient than every other economy. So, while countries such as Germany and Singapore are going backwards, Australia is still growing. And I repeat: it is the 28th year of constant growth.
That is not something to be sneezed at. You can't do that against those headwinds and trade tensions if you don't set the right sort of framework, and the Morrison government has set the right sort of framework. Jobs are growing; jobs are coming. We've produced over 1.4 million jobs over the past year, and we have said, before the election and since, that we will create another 1¼ million jobs. With those jobs comes growth in wages. But one doesn't follow the other. You don't move wages and then hope for the jobs. That doesn't happen. That is not the real world.
Our budget is coming back into surplus for the first time in more than a decade, as we maintain our record of fiscal discipline and targeted spending. So there is no room to be moving wages arbitrarily, as those on the other side would have us do. We continue to monitor global events, and this government takes the necessary actions to be able to do so. In our budget we set out the conditions of how we were going to meet this, and that has shown up in the recent national accounts, with that 28 consecutive years of economic growth. And I say again: it's a record unmatched by any other developed economy. It's also a reminder of the resilience of the Australian economy. In the June quarter, real GDP grew by 0.5 per cent. That is 1.4 per cent higher for the financial year.
So, as you can see, we do create the conditions to be able to create more jobs. Tax cuts have come in. People have started to feel them. Over five million tax returns have already been received, and $15 billion is now flowing through the economy that wasn't there before and that certainly wouldn't be flowing through the economy if those on the other side had been elected. But, as we know, and as I said in my first speech last night, when the electorate sees what it sees as its priorities being observed, it shows a prevailing common sense, and that prevailing common sense produces a government that produces results for them. With that, we are able to bring more jobs and better conditions for business.
I know I need to explain to the other side what business does and how it is the producer of jobs. You can't be putting people into the Public Service just because you want more friends. The Morrison government is the government that produces more jobs because it sets the conditions for business so that businesses—like the one I used to run, the small businesses that are the engine of our economy—see that we can set the conditions. They take faith, and they create the jobs. So in answer: the conditions are right. We've set the framework, and jobs will come and salaries will increase.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (15:23): Well, haven't you seen it all: a third-term government with no agenda, no plan. They've given answers about how to bring forward and get the economy going. Of course, we've been saying it from our side, but now you've got the NAB and the Master Builders Association also saying it. That's on top of the Reserve Bank saying it. But no: they still won't listen. And this is the interesting thing: I don't think they actually know they're in government, because they never expected to get there. So they're just sitting there in dream world: 'Let's just pull out the plan'—of no plan—'Let's come up with a sort of make-believe situation about what we're going to do with the economy and not worry about what all the experts say.' But don't listen to us. Just listen to the experts. They're saying that you have to bring infrastructure forward. That creates jobs. It boosts the economy. We need to do this. Listen to what the experts are saying.
If we actually started creating these jobs in a substantial way, we'd boost the economy. We'd start getting small businesses operating. I'm very proud to say that in my previous life I was a member of the largest small-business organisation in this country—in fact, probably larger than all the small businesses put together—made up of owner-drivers. Those owner-drivers could be working on construction sites, but not to the degree that the government want, because they are in a dream world. They are not listening to anyone; they're still asleep. You are in government; start governing. Start taking steps that make a difference in this economy.
We've seen, in the last six years, this Liberal economic mismanagement leave this economy in a perilous position, in equal parts unstable and unfair. Despite claiming to be superior economic managers, their record on the economy is nothing to crow about. According to the ABS National Accounts, economic growth is at its lowest level since the global financial crisis, with our year-on-year growth just 1.4 per cent for the June quarter of this year. Again, they're in a dream world: 'Oh, no, everything's okay.' Regardless of the fact that the ABS statistics are telling us we're in crisis, our growth is okay! Start listening to the experts. Wake up. Come out of your dream. Wages are growing at one-sixth the pace of profits, the worst wages growth on record. People are doing it tough out there. They're struggling to pay their bills. They're struggling to make it. And, quite clearly, this government hasn't got an answer. These figures are all according to the ABS National Accounts for the June quarter of 2019.
More than 1.8 million Australians are out of work or looking for more work. Household debt has surged to record levels. Don't take my word for it; this is from the Westpac-Melbourne Institute Index of Consumer Sentiment last month. Wake up. Weak growth like this is an inevitable consequence of a government with a political strategy but no economic plan—a strategy that seems to be all about attacking workers' representatives, whistleblowers, journalists, unemployed people and others who dare to question the vacuum that is this government.
Under Labor, Australia became one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD. But, under the Liberals, we have dropped down to 20th place. Wake up. Our industrial relations system is the engine of our economy, because, as we know, lifting wages lifts consumption, which lifts growth. We've heard that clearly from the Reserve Bank just recently, with the RBA governor, Philip Lowe, saying:
… my view is that a further pick-up in wages growth is both affordable and desirable.
But what does the government do? It turns around and attacks the voices saying they want wages growth. What is the ensuring integrity bill about? (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:28): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator McKenzie) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale) today relating to climate change.
We've seen the government put up the white flag today on the Murray-Darling Basin. We've got fires raging across Queensland and New South Wales. And the minister who is responsible for water, natural disasters and drought, Minister Littleproud, can't even tell us whether he accepts the science on climate change. So, while fires are raging, fireys are telling us that we've got to get serious about the dangers of global warming and climate change. We've got farmers crying out; they know that the climate is in dire straits. The scientists know that we have to take action to reduce carbon pollution and to get our house in order when it comes to climate change. But the one minister responsible for this has told the Australian people that he doesn't know if climate change is man-made. How on earth can this bloke continue to be the minister responsible for water and the minister responsible for the government's policy and response on drought and natural disasters when he doesn't even accept the basic science? It is an absolute joke that this government has David Littleproud as the minister in charge of these issues.
But it's not just the water minister; today we see the environment minister, Sussan Ley, putting up the white flag on our nation's biggest river system, the Murray-Darling Basin. After years of this government, the coalition government, mismanaging the Murray-Darling Basin and saying there was nothing going wrong—'Nothing to see here; don't worry about it, folks'—we now hear that the water minister doesn't even believe in climate change, let alone the impact of drought, and the environment minister says, 'There's not enough water to look after the river system and people are just going to have to go without.' This is an absolute catastrophe, and it has happened on the watch of the coalition government and the water portfolio being managed by the National Party.
Today the environment minister is saying that, because there's no water, we won't be able to do the things the river needs in order to keep it flowing and keep it alive. She's softening the public up for mass fish kills this summer. She's telling family farmers downstream, 'Sorry, but there's not enough water to go around.' Meanwhile, their big corporate mates have been taking out too much water, being too greedy, and now there's none left for anybody else—none left for the environment, none left for the fish and none left for the small farmers. Year after year, farmers, environmentalists and those of us here in the Senate have been standing up and calling out for action to save the Murray-Darling in the face of a drying climate and climate change, and this government has failed to act. They did worse than that; they deny the science of climate change, they stick their head in the sand over that, and they turn a blind eye to the corruption and greed that has been going on throughout the basin. The National Party have been trying to dupe regional and rural Australia for far too long—heads in the sand, climate change denialists and looking after their big mates.
Well, I tell you what, Mr President: the chooks are coming home to roost. Fires are raging across northern Australia, the river is in crisis and farmers know that their back is against the wall. And whose fault is it? It is the fault of this government, with its ignorance, its climate change scepticism and denial and its absolute contempt for everyday Australians who want proper action on saving our environment and making sure there is a river here for future generations. It will be on the head of this government and every single one of its water ministers—whether that has been Barnaby Joyce or David Littleproud—and its environment ministers, Sussan Ley, Frydenberg and, of course, Melissa Price. They have done nothing. The death of the river is on their watch, and they ought to take responsibility. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: I remind senators to refer to members of this place and the other place by their proper titles or at least their proper names.
Question agreed to.
PETITIONS
The Clerk: A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:
Seismic Testing
TO THE HONOURABLE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE,
Seismic testing poses an unacceptable risk to the health of our oceans and delays the transition to a low carbon economy.
Seismic testing involves continuous airgun blasts every 10-15 seconds to map the location of oil and gas under the ocean floor.
The sound of each blast is louder than a jet engine. It is often conducted 24 hours a day for weeks on end.
Seismic testing has been shown to kill plankton within a kilometre, affect humpback whales within three kilometres, significantly increase mortality in scallops, and is currently being investigated to determine the impacts on pearl oysters and fish.
In 2018, New Zealand banned any further offshore oil and gas exploration permits from being granted, including seismic testing.
Meanwhile, the Australian Government continues to hand out permits that allow seismic testing for offshore oil and gas, putting our oceans and marine life at serious risk and further advancing the climate crisis through massive fossil fuel consumption. Every state in Australia is a target.
Most recently seismic testing has been approved in our pristine Great Australian Bight, home to the endangered southern right whale and an area worthy of World Heritage protection. An application for seismic testing has been lodged off the west coast of Tasmania's beautiful King Island. And the Newcastle community in NSW is challenging seismic testing off the coastline having already been subject to testing in 2018.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AUSTRALIA'S OCEANS AND MARINE LIFE AND HELP PREVENT DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE.
YOUR PETITIONERS ASK THAT THE SENATE LEGISLATE TO BAN SEISMIC TESTING AND OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION IN ALL AUSTRALIAN WATERS.
by Senator Whish-Wilson (from 5,986 citizens
Petition received.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Dean Smith to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that Western Australia's North West Shelf celebrated 30 years of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in August this year;
(b) notes the following milestones for the LNG sector:
(i) that Japan was Western Australia's first LNG customer back in 1989, and continues to be Australia's largest LNG customer,
(ii) in 2006, Western Australia became the first jurisdiction in the world to export LNG to China,
(iii) in 2018, Western Australia's LNG sales by volume increased 34% to 44.7 million tonnes from Gorgon, Wheatstone, Northwest shelf and Pluto, and
(iv) in 2019, Australia's total LNG production capacity will reach 88 mtpa, making it the largest LNG producer in the world; and
(c) recognises the important contribution the LNG sector makes to the Western Australian economy, accounting for 17% of total resources and energy exports in 2018, and estimated to be worth $27 billion to the economy.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges:
(i) the cost, cause and impact of lengthy delay in case management on children and families with matters before the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia,
(ii) the impact of such delay on the health, safety and wellbeing of children involved in matters before the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and
(iii) the mental impact on parents resulting from too many Australian parents being denied equal custody or access to their children following divorce or separation; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to hold a Royal Commission or establish a joint select committee into the family law system to reach a final and comprehensive determination of this contentious area of law, taking into account all prior reviews to reach an outcome for the benefit of Australian families without further delay in a holistic informed process, rather than in a fragmented fashion which has been the hallmark to the present time.
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Traditional Owners have not been given enough time to assess the cultural heritage impact of a plan to raise the wall of Warragamba dam, with just 40 days to respond to a 2000-page report,
(ii) the raised dam would flood world heritage-listed areas of the Blue Mountains and a number of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, and
(iii) on 16 August 2019, 100 people gathered in the Blue Mountains village of Faulconbridge for a public meeting, organised by the Blue Mountains City Council and the Wollondilly Shire Council, where Traditional Owners spoke about the 'inadequate and rushed cultural heritage assessment' for the Warragamba dam proposal; and
(b) calls on the New South Wales government to give Traditional Owners more time to respond to the report, and to engage in genuine consultation with the community on the Warragamba dam proposal.
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) economic growth is the slowest it has been since 2008 when Labor navigated Australia through the global financial crisis,
(ii) wages growth has hit record lows,
(iii) 1.8 million Australians are looking for work or for more work to combat the rising cost of living and increasing pressures on their household budgets,
(iv) living standards and productivity are going backwards, and
(v) the Morrison Government has no plan to deal with the domestic economic challenges, leaving us unnecessarily exposed to global shocks, and to support Australians struggling to meet their weekly costs; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to properly outline an economic plan that supports the floundering economy and better safeguards it from global risks, done in a fiscally-sustainable way, which could include:
(i) delivering more infrastructure spending now to maintain jobs and stimulate economic growth,
(ii) bringing forward part of the income tax cuts scheduled to commence on 1 July 2022,
(iii) reviewing and responsibly increasing Newstart to put more money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it in the economy,
(iv) implementing the Australian Investment Guarantee to incentivise and boost business investment, and
(v) developing an urgent and comprehensive plan to boost wages, starting with restoring penalty rates.
Senator Keneally to move on the next day of sitting:
(1) That the Senate notes that—
(a) Paladin – the small company registered to a beach shack on Kangaroo Island, which was awarded a $523 million contract without a proper tender process – has been fined over 1,000 times in 18 months for failing to provide contracted services;
(b) the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs Senator Cash told the Senate on 10 September 2019 that these fines "often related to relatively minor administrative failures"; and
(c) documents produced under order of the Senate revealed that the total abatement could have totalled $11 million, if not for monthly penalty limits.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 12.20 pm on 16 September 2019:
(a) an unredacted copy of each performance management report, which details the aforementioned fines, relating to Paladin's contract to provide services on Manus Island; and
(b) a copy of the full report prepared by the Independent Health Advice Panel for the second quarter of 2019, in accordance with section 199E of the Migration Act 1958.
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
(1) That the Senate notes that—
(a) Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) and the Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945 (ICJ), accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS);
(b) subsequently, on 22 March 2002, Australia made declarations under articles 287(1) and 298(1) of UNCLOS, and article 26 of the Statute of the ICJ, actions which:
(i) limited Australia's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and the ITLOS in maritime boundaries disputes, and
(ii) prevented Timor-Leste from exercising its rights under international law;
(c) the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT), responsible for scrutinising all treaty actions by Australia, was not given the opportunity to scrutinise the declarations before their making;
(d) JSCOT reported on 26 August 2002 that non-government committee members 'believe the ICJ declaration ... damages Australia's international reputation and may not be in Australia's long-term national interests' as it 'may be interpreted as an effort to intimidate and limit the options of neighbouring countries in relation to any future maritime border disputes'; and
(e) Australia has since signed a maritime boundaries treaty with the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.
(2) That the following matter be referred to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2019:
(a) Australia's declarations made under articles 287(1) and 298(1) of UNCLOS and article 26 of the Statute of the ICJ, including the question of whether those declarations should be revoked and new declarations made which submit maritime delimitation disputes to the jurisdiction of the ICJ or ITLOS; and
(b) any related matter.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act creating a system of mandatory self-assessment of family law matters, and for other purposes. Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill 2019.
Senator Farrell to move on 16 September 2019:
That the Fair Work Amendment (Casual Loading Offset) Regulations 2018, made under the Fair Work Act 2009, be disallowed [F2018L01770].
Senator McDonald to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the resources industry is critical to the Queensland economy, contributing 1 in every 8 jobs in Queensland and $4.3 billion in royalties shared across the state of Queensland,
(ii) the New Acland coal mine has been seeking approvals for their Stage 3 expansion since 2007, which would extend the mine's life until 2031 and increase production from 5.2 million tonnes to 7.5 million tonnes per annum,
(iii) the New Acland coal mine is vital for the Oakey economy, currently employing 300 workers with dozens more servicing the needs of the mine site, and
(iv) recently, the mine has reduced its staff from 300 to 150, due to 12 years of delays in receiving the necessary approvals; and
(b) calls on the Queensland Government to not allow its approvals process to be delayed because of judicial activism.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate notes that:
(a) on 10 September 2019, in relation to general business notice of motion no. 105, the Australian Labor Party indicated it does not like long, detailed motions; and
(b) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is ineffective at regulating habitat loss and is failing to prevent species extinction.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting: days after today:
That the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Timeshift Applications and Other Measures) Regulations 2019, made under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994, be disallowed [F2019L00357].
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting: days after today:
That the Air Services Regulations 2019, made under the Air Services Act 1995, be disallowed [F2019L00371].
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting: days after today:
That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties) Regulations 2019, made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed [F2019L00352].
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting: days after today:
That the Road Vehicle Standards Rules 2018, made under the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018, be disallowed [F2019L00198].
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) community members are in Parliament this week to meet with members and senators to talk about their lived experiences of being on income support,
(ii) many have recounted the stress, trauma and poverty they experience engaging with the income support system and living below the poverty line,
(iii) Newstart and Youth Allowance have not had an increase in real terms for over 25 years,
(iv) recipients of these income support payments are unable to cover basic living costs such as housing, food, transport, healthcare and utilities, and
(v) income inequality and poverty has significant negative effects on individuals' physical and mental wellbeing and society; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government and all members of Parliament to listen to the lived experiences of those on income support, and make it a priority to help address poverty in Australia by raising Newstart and Youth Allowance immediately.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) since 2001, more than 230 Australians have died in quad bike-related accidents,
(ii) multiple stakeholders have called for action on quad bike safety, including the National Farmers' Federation, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the National Rural Health Alliance, the National Rural Women's Coalition, the Country Women's Association of Australia, and the Australian Workers' Union, and
(iii) since 2013, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has regularly issued public warnings on quad bike safety, and has recommended a mandatory safety standard to the Assistant Treasurer, including requiring operator protection devices for general use models; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to act to prevent future deaths by adopting the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's recommendations in full.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 28 August 2019 was Unequal Pay Day, marking the 59 additional days from the end of the previous financial year that women must work, on average, to earn the same amount as men earnt in 2018-19,
(ii) the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) annual data, released on 15 August 2019, shows that the gender pay gap in Australia is still unacceptably high at 14%,
(iii) men earn $25,717, or 21.3%, more than women each year on average, in full-time work across all jobs, including overtime and bonuses (total remuneration),
(iv) financial and insurance services remains the industry with the highest total remuneration gender pay gap at 24.4%,
(v) professional, scientific and technical services is the industry with the second-highest gender pay gap at 24.3%,
(vi) in May 2019, the gender pay gap was 17.3% in the private sector and 10.7% in the public sector,
(vii) in 2018, the gender pay gap amongst managers was 25.7%, with an average total remuneration dollar difference of $50,370 – WGEA attributes this gap as due to more discretionary pay and less reliance on awards and collective agreements among non-managers,
(viii) the WGEA, KPMG Australia and Diversity Council of Australia paper, She's Price(d)less: the economics of the gender pay gap, estimates that gender discrimination is the largest single contributor to the gender pay gap, at 39%,
(ix) WGEA data shows that 70% of workplaces have a formal policy and strategy in place to support flexible working arrangements for employees, yet less than 2% have set targets for men's engagement in flexible work, and
(x) 47.8% of organisations reporting to WGEA provide primary carer's leave, and 41.8% provide secondary carer's leave, in addition to the Federal Government's paid parental leave scheme; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) increase the resourcing for WGEA, strengthen its powers, and require all large employers to publicly report their gender pay gap,
(ii) prohibit the use of pay gag clauses in private employment contracts, which disguise the gender pay gap in the private sector,
(iii) set gender pay equality as an objective of awards and the Fair Work Act,
(iv) introduce measures to ensure appropriate classification and pay for work in traditionally low paid industries where the majority of workers are women and/or migrants, and
(v) expand the coverage of WGEA to include the public sector.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:34): by leave—I move:
That Senator Brown be granted leave of absence for the period 11 September 2019 to 12 September 2019 inclusive, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Roberts for today, postponed until 16 October 2019.
The PRESIDENT (15:35): I remind senators that that question may be put, if anyone seeks for it to be put. If not, we will now move to the discovery of formal business.
COMMITTEES
Privileges Committee
Reference
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:35): I move:
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) during its examination of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) recommended that:
(i) the bill not apply to members of the House of Representatives or senators, and
(ii) the House of Representatives and Senate develop a parallel parliamentary Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, imposing on members and senators similar transparency obligations to those in the bills but appropriately adapted for the parliamentary environment;
(b) on 18 October 2018, the Senate referred the following matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report: the development of a foreign influence transparency scheme to apply to parliamentarians;
(c) on 25 October 2018, the House of Representatives referred the following matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:
(i) the development of a foreign influence transparency scheme to apply to parliamentarians, in parallel with the Government's scheme established under the ForeignInfluenceTransparencySchemeAct2018, which imposes on Members similar transparency obligations to those in the Government's scheme, but is appropriately adapted for the parliamentary environment,
(ii) consideration of the Government's scheme and its timetable for implementation, and the report of the PJCIS on the enabling legislation, in particular the recommendations in relation to a parallel parliamentary scheme,
(iii) consideration of any other issues related to a parliamentary foreign influence transparency scheme, and
(iv) consultation with the equivalent committee in the Senate with the aim of agreeing to a single parliamentary foreign influence transparency scheme to apply uniformly, together with uniform processes for its implementation for members and senators; and
(d) the inquiry of the Committee of Privileges and the inquiry of the House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests both lapsed at the end of the 45th Parliament and that neither inquiry has recommenced.
(2) That the Senate refers to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report, by 28 November 2019, the development of a foreign influence transparency scheme to apply to parliamentarians, with particular reference to:
(a) the imposition on senators of similar transparency obligations to those in the legislative scheme established under the ForeignInfluenceTransparencySchemeAct2018;
(b) consideration of the legislative scheme, and the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the enabling legislation, in particular the recommendations relating to the introduction of a parallel scheme adapted to the parliamentary environment; and
(c) any related matter.
(3) The Standing Committee of Privileges consult with the equivalent committee in the House of Representatives with the aim of agreeing a single parliamentary foreign influence transparency scheme to apply uniformly, together with uniform processes for its implementation for senators and members.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government supports the motion to re-refer the development of a parliamentary foreign influence transparency scheme to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, noting that the previous committee had been briefed by the Attorney-General's Department on the implementation of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 to support the consideration of a parliamentary scheme, and that the Attorney-General's Department held several discussions with officials from the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services, including to explore options for a parliamentary scheme to leverage the IT infrastructure developed by the department to support the scheme they administer.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:37): At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal the ANL Act 1956, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator DUNIAM: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:37): I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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 second reading speech was unavailable at the time of publishing.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
Product Stewardship Amendment (Packaging and Plastics) Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:38): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Product Stewardship Act 2011, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:39): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
In essence, this Bill does two things: it makes the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation's 2025 National Packaging Targets mandatory; and it emulates the European Union's directive that bans and otherwise restricts the most problematic of single-use plastics.
In doing so, the Bill responds to the twin crises that are a result of our current approach to packaging and plastics: a recycling industry that is in disarray; and a torrent of plastic waste that is choking our oceans.
These crises have arisen because the environmental harm caused by end-of-life plastic and packaging is external to the market. Production and consumption is largely disconnected from disposal. Retail is about selling products, not what happens afterwards.
This Bill tackles these market failures head-on by establishing a mandatory product stewardship scheme that will require manufacturers, importers and distributors of consumer packaging and certain single-use plastics to deal with the problem.
This Bill will force industry to act.
For too long, people have been sold false promises. Industry spent twenty years talking of 'corporate social responsibility' and running ad campaigns while at the same time supermarkets put more and more plastic packaging onto their shelves.
Governments have been equally culpable. At all levels, they conceded to industry and stopped concentrating on the quality of the system. And the recycling industry became a house of cards.
Right now we need decisive action. We need decisive action to deal with the actual problem. And we need decisive action to restore the trust. The goodwill of millions of Australians who want to help is being seriously challenged by the failure of government and industry.
This Bill is the least this Parliament should be doing to keep faith with our constituents and to keep pace with the rest of the world.
National Packaging Targets
The 2025 National Packaging Targets were developed by the industry-led Australian Packaging Covenant with input from environment groups. They were announced in September 2018, and received the endorsement of the Australian Government.
The 2025 National Packaging Targets are:
- 100% of all packaging will be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025.
- 70% of plastic packaging will be recycled or composted by 2025.
- 30% average recycled content in all packaging by 2025.
- Problematic and unnecessary single-use plastic packaging will be phased out.
This is all well and good, and sets a good foundation for Australia to make real progress in tackling the twin crises of recycling and marine plastic pollution. But the concern the Australian Greens have is that it might just be another empty promise.
As they stand, the packaging targets are a non-binding commitment made by some of the packaging industry. They do not capture the entire market and they are not compulsory. If they are not met, no one has to answer for it.
The concerns the Australian Greens have are based on the track record of the Packaging Covenant. As the Department of Environment and Energy's website states:
The Australian Packaging Covenant has been the principal national instrument to reduce the environmental impacts of consumer packaging in Australia since 1999.
In other words, the mess we've got ourselves into has happened on the Packaging Covenant's watch. Twenty years of a voluntary coregulatory approach has given us a recycling industry that is on its knees and oceans that are choking on plastic.
In particular, the Packaging Covenant's track record in addressing plastic packaging is woeful. The rate of recycling of plastic packaging has been stuck at around 30%, while the consumption of plastic packaging has been growing exponentially.
Recycling rates for other packaging materials have also flat-lined in recent years. The exception is the recycling rate for glass which has actually started to decline.
What's more, these figures are based on data collected before China's National Sword policy took effect in early 2018. The latest results are likely to be even less flattering.
All of this is despite the Packaging Covenant having developed a commitment paper in 2005 on the Sustainable Manufacture, Use and Recovery of Packaging. This included the aims of increasing the amount of packaging recycled and not increasing the amount of packaging disposed of to landfill.
The charitable view is that the Packaging Covenant has done its best in the face of government inertia. The uncharitable view—and more accurate view—is that the Packaging Covenant has provided greenwashing for an industry that has resisted meaningful government action to tackle the problem.
In particular, the Packaging Covenant has spent the better part of the last twenty years fighting tooth and nail against container deposit schemes, despite the evidence that they work. South Australia has continuously led the country in recycling rates, and better quality recycling at that—Adelaide doesn't have a problem with glass stockpiles. It's no accident that, until recently, South Australia was the only state with a container deposit scheme.
That the Packaging Covenant has resisted change is logical, because the Packaging Covenant is the packaging industry: Visy, Amcor, Coca-Cola Amatil, Lion, Coles, Woolworths and most of the other big players. These corporations earn money making and selling packaging and packaged products.
If they've seen the light, then all credit to them. And if they're serious, then they should support the 2025 National Packaging Targets being included in a mandatory product stewardship scheme.
A mandatory product stewardship scheme will ensure the integrity of the targets and ensure that the aims of the Packaging Covenant translate into meaningful action that is of benefit to the recycling industry and that improves the health of our oceans.
A mandatory product stewardship scheme will also ensure that the entire industry—manufacturers, importers and distributors—are all required to participate. This will address the problem of free riders who might be happy to let others do the heavy lifting.
Single-use plastics
Marine plastic pollution is one of the big environmental problems of the 21st century. An estimated eight million tonnes of plastic makes its way into the world's oceans every year. Plastic packaging is a particularly significant contributor to this problem, with around 30% of it escaping collection systems, and much of it making its way through stormwater systems into the sea. On current trends there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.
The impact of plastic pollution on the marine environment is horrendous. Dolphins, seals, turtles and other large marine animals are killed and maimed when they become entangled in plastic waste. Birds die after ingesting chunks of plastic. Albatrosses have been discovered with whole toothbrushes in their stomachs.
Once into our oceans, plastic breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming tiny microplastic particles. As a result, plastic pollution has made its way into every corner of the globe. 90% of all marine birds and fish are thought to have plastic particles in their stomachs. Plastic has been found on the beaches of the most remote islands in the world and in creatures that live in the deep-sea trenches of the Pacific Ocean. Microplastics have been found in a majority of the world's drinking water, and have even been found in rain falling on the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the Pyrenees in France.
This is a problem that is global in scale. But it is a problem that requires local action by every national government around the world.
This Bill emulates the approach taken by the European Union in the development of their directive for the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment.
The EU started by identifying those items that are the most problematic sources of marine plastic pollution. It did this by selecting those plastic products and packaging that were most prevalent on the beaches of Europe.
It then evaluated the nature of these products and packaging, their usefulness, the availability of alternatives, and the avenues for disposal. Having undertaken this extensive analysis, the EU then adopted a range of measures, including targets, prohibitions, design requirements, labelling requirements, and financial contributions.
This Bill emulates the following measures from the EU directive:
- A ban on the following single-use plastics: cotton bud sticks, cutlery, plates, straws, stirrers, sticks for balloons, food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene, and products made of oxo-degradable plastic.
- Consumption reduction targets for plastic food containers and beverage cups.
- Labelling requirements for plastic food containers and beverage cups; and cigarette filters, sanitary products, and wet wipes containing plastic.
- A container deposit scheme and a recycling target for beverage containers.
- The requirement for industry to cover the cost of disposal, clean-up and public awareness campaigns for food containers and beverage cups, beverage containers, packets and wrappers, wet wipes, balloons, and tobacco filters; and the costs of public awareness campaigns for sanitary products.
The European Parliament agreed to these measures by a majority of 560 to 35.
The Australian Parliament copying this approach would not be a radical step.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:39): At the request of Senator Pratt, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the impact that the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (Global Fund) has had since 2002, including:
(i) programs that the Global Fund supports have saved an estimated 27 million lives since 2002,
(ii) in 2017 alone, the Global Fund supported antiretroviral treatment for 17.5 million people with HIV, enabled treatment of 5 million people with TB and the distribution of 197 million bed nets to prevent malaria, and
(iii) the US$13.7 billion that the Global Fund has invested in the Indo-Pacific region has provided over 15 years of antiretroviral treatment for 9 million people with HIV, treatment for 14 million people with TB, and distributed 285 million bed nets to prevent malaria;
(b) notes that the Global Fund replenishment, which aims to raise at least US$14 billion over 2020 to 2022 to support programs that would save a further 16 million lives, is scheduled to take place in Lyon, France on 10 October 2019;
(c) notes that other nations, including Switzerland, Canada, Germany and Italy, as well as the European Union, have increased their financial commitment to the Global Fund; and
(d) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) have the Prime Minister attend the Global Fund replenishment in October to demonstrate the importance of the replenishment in achieving Australia's health security goals, and
(ii) commit to increasing Australia's contribution to the Global Fund in the 2020 to 2022 period, to contribute to a successful replenishment.
Question agreed to.
Domestic and Family Violence
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:40): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) since my last motion on this issue in the Senate, there have been a further 6 women killed by violence in Australia, taking the overall national toll for 2019 to 35, as reported by Counting Dead Women Australia from Destroy The Joint, and a further death of a young woman in Queensland is still under investigation,
(ii) there is no national government reporting program to record the ongoing toll of women killed by violence in real-time,
(iii) on average, one woman is murdered every 9 days by her current or former partner,
(iv) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2016:
(A) more than 370,000 Australian women are subjected to violence from men each year,
(B) 1 in 3 Australian women has experienced physical violence,
(C) 1 in 5 Australian women has experienced sexual violence,
(D) 1 in 6 Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner,
(E) 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner,
(F) Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner, and
(G) Australian women are 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised for assault injuries arising from family and domestic violence than men, with hospitalisation rates rising by 23% since 2014-15,
(v) in 2017, young women aged between 15-34 accounted for more than half of reported sexual assaults,
(vi) there is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence,
(vii) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report experiencing violence at 3.1 times the rate of non-Indigenous women,
(viii) in 2016-17, Indigenous women were 32 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence as non-Indigenous women,
(ix) the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 states that the overall prevalence of violence against women will only start to decrease in the very long term as gender roles change, and
(x) the Fourth Action Plan recognises that demand for domestic and family violence services has increased, and will continue to increase; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) recognise domestic violence against women as a national security crisis,
(ii) adequately fund frontline domestic, family and sexual violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them,
(iii) legislate for 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave so that women do not have to choose between paying the bills and seeking safety,
(iv) ensure that all government-funded counselling services for domestic and family violence are delivered by expert family violence service providers in accordance with the National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator Interventions,
(v) implement all 25 recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into violence against women, tabled in the Senate on 20 August 2015, and
(vi) maintain and publish an official real-time national toll of women killed by violence in Australia.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: This is a serious issue and it has been stated previously by the government that violence against women and children is an issue this government is responding to with the largest ever investment, of $340 million, into the Fourth Action Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. We have finalised the fourth action plan, recognising that the policy and funding to reduce family and domestic violence is a shared responsibility between the states, territories and, of course, the federal government. The Morrison government is absolutely committed to continuing the work with the community, the corporate sector, academia and across government to improve the safety of women and children.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:41): I ask that subparagraph (b)(iii) of the motion be put separately, and I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator PATRICK: Centre Alliance supports this motion, but I've asked for it to be split because we have concerns about paragraph (b)(iii). We absolutely support providing domestic violence leave to those who need it, but we are concerned that requiring small businesses to provide 10 days of paid leave could be a significant impost on those businesses which many would struggle to manage.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:42): I seek leave to make a very short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?
Senator WATERS: It's more an explanation, if I may. I will be very brief.
The PRESIDENT: This is—
Senator WATERS: Are you going to give me leave or not? You can say no.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted. This is not an opportunity for debate. This happens a lot. It is not up to me to grant or not grant leave. What I'm going to do now is put the substantive motion without (b)(iii), because the motion can stand on its own without (b)(iii), and then we'll vote on whether to incorporate (b)(iii) as part of the final resolution.
Senator Gallagher: I just seek your advice: we do allow split motions—
The PRESIDENT: If people are voting differently.
Senator Gallagher: But is there precedent for splitting subparagraphs of motions? I'm happy for you to consider it and deal with this today. It's just that we could end up in the situation of having a lot of division of motions if we go down that path.
The PRESIDENT: I have always been advised—and I'm happy to be corrected by the Clerk now or later—that, as long as it makes sense and we don't have an incoherent motion where there are words missing or calls missing, we can put parts of a motion separately. The way I read this, Senator Patrick has asked to consider (b)(iii) separately, which may be a substantive issue, but the motion would still make sense without (b)(iii) in it. It just means that (b)(iv), b(v) and (b)(vi) would become (b)(iii), (b)(iv) and (b)(v). If I'm incorrect about that advice to the chamber, I will come back. The Clerk is happily nodding to me.
Senator Waters: May I assist the chamber with not a debating point but a simple explanation?
The PRESIDENT: Sure.
Senator Waters: This motion has been put many a time for the last 12-odd months. I'll just flag for Senator Patrick's information: previously this motion has not needed to be voted upon and everyone has supported the very paragraph that you are seeking to take out, including Centre Alliance—
The PRESIDENT: With all due respect—
Senator Waters: Well, it's a very big deal to vote on a domestic violence—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, please! This is not an opportunity for debate. In the past this motion has been voted on. There has not been a division, but it is not correct to assert the motion has not been voted on and a senator is asking for it to be voted on for the first time. That is incorrect. They get decided on the voices; they just don't go to a division. They have the same force of the Senate. This may or may not go to a division, but I think it is an unfair reflection on any senator who asks for a motion to be split to be making an assertion about what they may express. This is formal business where we don't debate. There are other opportunities for debate. I will respect the will of the Senate, which is that a senator is allowed to vote on a clause separately. My ruling here—and I will advise the chamber if I am wrong—is that (b)(iii) can be excised and voted on separately, because it does not affect the sense of the motion, even if it is a substantive issue. First, I will put the motion, absent clause (b)(iii). The effect of that would be that (b)(iv), (v) and (vi) become (b)(iii), (iv) and (v) if (b)(iii) is not supported. The question is that the motion, with (b)(iii) excised, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: Now the question is to include (b)(iii) in the resolution.
Question agreed to.
New South Wales: Land Clearing
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:46): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the New South Wales Liberal-National Government has granted amnesty to hundreds of farmers who cleared land illegally before the disastrous new land clearing laws came into effect; figures show land clearing rates more than doubled in the year prior to the introduction of new laws and tripled in the year after,
(ii) the decision comes after big cotton farms used their influence on the NSW Minister for Energy and Environment and the Minister for Agriculture to lobby for prosecutions to be dropped,
(iii) the decision contradicts earlier assurances given by the NSW Government,
(iv) the community is deeply opposed to the decision, and
(v) large-scale land clearing has turned Australia into a global deforestation hotspot and is exacerbating the climate emergency;
(b) condemns the NSW Government for their decision to grant amnesty to farmers who cleared land illegally; and
(c) calls on the NSW Government to reverse this decision.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:46): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: This is yet another political stunt by the Greens. It's inappropriate for the validity of state legislation to be debated in this chamber.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:46): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: This motion contains a number of unsubstantiated claims. While the New South Wales government direction on land clearing is deeply concerning, this motion is not an appropriate response. The Senate calling for the prosecution of farmers is not an appropriate response to the failure of the New South Wales government to provide leadership, certainty and appropriate protection and enforcement. The federal government should provide leadership to protect the interests of the environment and our farming communities in a time of drought, but instead they're asleep at the wheel of water policy and environmental protection.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:47): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted.
Senator Faruqi: It's not?
The PRESIDENT: I will explain again what I understand the agreement has been, which is that statements are made by those called to vote upon motions, but the mover of the motion does not make a statement. That is the understanding I have been led to believe has been reached.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 112 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:52]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:55): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis,
(ii) the Murray-Darling Basin is being exploited by water barons and big corporate irrigators who are pushing up the price of water and squeezing family farms out of the water market, and
(iii) urgent and immediate action is required to prevent more mass native-fish deaths, and more devastation for family farms, river communities and the environment; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to impose a moratorium on non-water users buying up water while the Murray-Darling Basin remains in crisis.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:55): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government understands the impact that drought is having across this country, including in the Murray-Darling Basin, and the government has referred the matter of the basin water market to the ACCC to investigate. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the work of this body.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:57): We request that the motion be split into clause (a) and clause (b).
The PRESIDENT: Okay.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:56): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: The Labor party won't be supporting this motion, although we do agree that the government needs to explain how it's going to deal with the problems of water speculation as they've been in government for six years and they're not addressing the many significant issues of the Murray-Darling Basin. But we also acknowledge that water market design is complex. There are many consequences, including for families and farmers that live in that area. That complexity can't be dealt with through this motion.
We urge the Greens to consider bringing back subjects like this to areas where the entire Senate can debate and put forward different views. These aren't straightforward or simple subjects, and it's very difficult to support this motion because of that.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that clause (a) of motion No. 115 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (16:01): The question is that clause (b) of motion No. 115 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reference
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:04): At the request of Senator Sterle, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by April 2020:
The importance of a viable, safe, sustainable and efficient road transport industry, with particular reference to:
a. the importance of an enforceable minimum award rate and sustainable standards and conditions for all stakeholders in the road transport industry;
b. the development and maintenance of road transport infrastructure to ensure a safe and efficient road transport industry;
c. the regulatory impact, including the appropriateness, relevance and adequacy of the legislative framework, on all stakeholders in the road transport industry;
d. the training and career pathways to support, develop and sustain the road transport industry;
e. the social and economic impact of road-related injury, trauma and death;
f. efficient cost-recovery measures for industry stakeholders, including subcontractors;
g. the impact of new technologies and advancements in freight distribution, vehicle design, road safety and alternative fuels;
h. the importance of establishing a formal consultative relationship between the road transport industry and all levels of government in Australia; and
i. other related matters.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:04): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Liberal-National government is supporting the transport industry with record investment in road infrastructure. The government is also working through the Transport and Infrastructure Council of COAG on developing a new system for heavy-vehicle charging in Australia. The government is also working with state and territory governments and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to make it easier for businesses to deliver freight in a safe manner and for workers in the industry to get home safely. This work is complemented by the new Office of Road Safety and the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety as well.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:05): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: One Nation will be supporting this motion because—hearing from the trucking companies—those owner-drivers say that this needs to be looked at. Big companies are actually taking over and controlling the pricing, and if we don't do something about it we will lose the owner-drivers, who control 85 per cent of the market. It will have an impact on rural and regional Australia, so I think it's important to get the truth out there to make sure that big multinational companies are not destroying owner-drivers. We therefore support this motion.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:06): I seek leave to make a brief statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator BERNARDI: In the hope that we may avoid a division, I intend to support this motion as well, as does Centre Alliance, I'm informed. If the government wants to take that into consideration, it might help.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 3 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:10]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MOTIONS
Medicinal Marijuana
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:12): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 106 standing in my name for today, relating to medicinal cannabis oil.
Leave granted.
Senator HANSON: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 19 April 2018, a meeting of the United States' Food and Drug Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drug Advisory Committee was informed that patients with drug resistant Lennox-Gestaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS) responded to cannabidiol oil in an oral form at 10-20mg/kg/day with statistically significant reductions in convulsive seizure frequency, and that the potential risks were manageable,
(ii) on 25 June 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved cannabidiol oral solution for patients aged 2 years and older for the treatment of severe and rare types of epilepsy such as LGS and DS,
(iii) parents of children with LGS or DS in Australia can obtain a prescription for cannabidiol oil through the Special Access Scheme but must pay the full cost of approximately $1,500 per month, and
(iv) the cost of cannabidiol oil is so high that some people cannot afford this treatment, and others are placed under huge financial stress in what is already a distressing situation; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to ensure affordable access to cannabidiol oil for patients with LGS and DS.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:13): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government is committed to affordable access to medicines under the mechanism stipulated by the law. Since January 2016, over 14,000 applications for medicinal cannabis have been approved by the Special Access Scheme, the SAS, which is overseen by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. Until domestic production meets local need, the government will authorise controlled importation by approved providers from approved international sources to enable an interim inventory in Australia. A recent study conducted by FreshLeaf Analytics, released in March this year, shows that the prices of most Australian medicinal cannabis products decreased by a further 26 per cent in the six months to March 2019.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:13): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator URQUHART: Labor will support this motion because we strongly support the principle of improved access to medicinal cannabis in Australia. Labor made a series of election commitments to improve access and affordability. We urge the government to follow our lead. However, like the government, we note that medicines must be assessed for safety and efficacy by the TGA. In addition, under the National Health Act, medicines cannot be added to the PBS until they are recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This ensures that independent experts, not politicians, guide which medicines are subsidised by taxpayers.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:14): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: The Greens will be supporting this motion. Indeed, we'd like this motion to go further. At the moment, under the current system, people are being deprived of access to medicinal cannabis because the pathway that has been established by this government sets up roadblock after roadblock. If the government was serious about providing access for people with chronic pain and with a range of other medical conditions for which medicinal cannabis would provide some benefit, they would set up an independent regulatory process, take it out of the hands of the TGA and put it within the framework of an expert independent body to allow doctors to prescribe it without requiring specific approvals and then state approvals beyond the approvals already granted through the medical system. At the moment, access to medicinal cannabis is a joke. It's about time the government got serious and recognised the serious need within the community, where people would get great benefit from accessing a drug that is proven to work for so many conditions.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 106 as amended be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Message Sticks Carried by Alwyn Doolan
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:15): I, and also on behalf of Senator Dodson, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Mr Alwyn Doolan carried 3 Message Sticks and the aspirations of many First Nations peoples for Treaty, Truth and Self-determination in a meaningful dialogue on a Voice on his 8,500 km journey from Cape York to Hobart to Canberra;
(b) recognises that the Message Sticks symbolise three stages of our country's story:
(i) the creation, dreaming and songlines that have governed our land for over 100,000 years,
(ii) the brutal years of colonisation, forced settlements and stolen generations, and
(iii) the healing to come together for a Makarrata with a Voice to create a new country where First Nations peoples' rights and cultural differences are valued in decision-making and constitutionally protected; and
(c) calls on the Prime Minister to accept the Message Sticks which represent an opportunity to reset the relationship between First Nations peoples and the Parliament.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:16): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Left out of this motion is the fact that Mr Doolan's message sticks also call on the federal government to begin treaty negotiations with Indigenous Australians. States and territories are currently in the process of developing treaties, and that process rightly sits with them, not the federal government. He asserts that he would be putting the government on notice by delivering the message sticks and calls on a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament for Indigenous Australians. Minister Wyatt and representatives of the NIAA met with Mr Doolan on behalf of government when he was here in Canberra earlier in the year.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:16): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: Although makarrata features 15 times in the government's quick guide to what was formerly known as the Uluru statement, I'm informed by the Anangu Mayatja Council of Elders that the term 'makarrata' in the Yolngu people's language in Arnhem Land means 'tribal punishment'. In 2018 the Central Desert communities released a statement rejecting the makarrata on traditional grounds because it belongs to the Top End of the Northern Territory and not Central Australia. It is tribal boundary law that prevents other nations and tribes from adopting this practice without permission or request. In the case of the Anangu people, they reject makarrata and hope that the Parliament of Australia acknowledges that tribal law overrides the call for recognition in the Australian Constitution. One Nation will not be supporting this motion and calls on the Greens to acknowledge that the message stick does not represent all nations and tribes. And I'd like to acknowledge Paddy Uluru's granddaughter in the gallery.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 107 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:22]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Newstart Allowance
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:24): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 108, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Dodson will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Dodson, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that new research from Monash University on the health of Disability Support Pension and Newstart Allowance recipients found that:
(i) Newstart recipients were 6.8 times more likely to rate their health as poor compared to wage earners,
(ii) nearly half (48.6%) of Newstart recipients reported having mental or behavioural problems compared with 21% of wage earners, and
(iii) Newstart recipients were at 1.5 to 2 times increased risk of visiting a hospital compared with wage earners;
(b) acknowledges that the lead researcher, Professor Alex Collie stated 'My personal view is that an increase in the rate of Newstart would help people to become more healthy. It would help them to afford the things that a lot of us take for granted like food and housing, which are important things if you're trying to be healthy';
(c) recognises that poor health, poverty and financial stress is a barrier to work; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to reduce the burden of ill health faced by Newstart recipients by immediately increasing the rate of Newstart.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:25): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The proportion of Australians receiving working-age income support payments has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years, at 14.3 per cent. The social security system provides income support to disability support pension and Newstart recipients, and the Newstart allowance rate is increased twice a year. In addition, they receive various health concessions and access to public health services. Australia has a targeted and comprehensive welfare system which is sustainable as a result of the government's prudent fiscal management and our strong economy.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 108 standing in the names of Senators Siewert and Dodson be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:27]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology
Appointment
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (16:29): I move:
(1) That a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology be established to inquire and report on the following matters:
(a) the size and scope of the opportunity for Australian consumers and business arising from financial technology (FinTech) and regulatory technology (RegTech);
(b) barriers to the uptake of new technologies in the financial sector;
(c) the progress of FinTech facilitation reform and the benchmarking of comparable global regimes;
(d) current RegTech practices and the opportunities for the RegTech industry to strengthen compliance but also reduce costs;
(e) the effectiveness of current initiatives in promoting a positive environment for FinTech and RegTech start-ups; and
(f) any related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before the first sitting: day in October 2020.
(3) That the committee consist of six senators, as follows:
(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and
(c) one nominated by any minority party or independent senator.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; 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) If a member of a committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the chair of the committee appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting, and if the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair of a committee appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader or whip of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee.
(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(7) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and as deputy chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, has a casting vote.
(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.
(12) 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 or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(13) 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.
(14) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Climate Change
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:30): I move:
That the Senate acknowledges that the burning of thermal coal is the single biggest contributor to climate change.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:30): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Australian coal is some of the highest quality in the world, and we produce it more efficiently than most. Australia currently accounts for around four per cent of the world's thermal coal production. Australia's high-grade coal is environmentally better than sourcing coal from countries with lower-grade coal deposits in terms of energy content, ash content and other pollutants. Less Australian coal is needed to generate the same amount of energy, resulting in lower carbon emissions compared with coal from other countries.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:31): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: There is no evidence anywhere in the world linking the burning of coal to climate change—none whatsoever. And I challenge the Greens to provide that evidence and let us see it under scrutiny.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 113 standing in the name of Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:35]
Iran
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:37): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 111 standing in my name for today relating to the Strait of Hormuz be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
Senator Duniam: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I seek leave to make a statement of no longer than one minute.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: The escalating conflict in the Strait of Hormuz is nothing less than a crisis of Trump's own making. Rather than confront the administration and encourage it to return to the Iran nuclear deal process, a policy which was working, the Morrison government has decided to indulge Trump by participating in military naval activities around the strait and, in so doing, place our personnel at risk.
The impact of US sanctions upon the Iranian people have been catastrophic, with poverty surging and young people paying the highest price. We all want to live in a world free of violence, with the things we need to live a good life. These are aspirations that the Australian people share with the people of Iran. The Australian Greens call upon the Morrison government to grow a backbone and encourage the Trump administration to return to the deal framework.
MATTERS OF URGENCY
Newstart Allowance
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ) (16:39): 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 Siewert:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move: 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
"The low rate of Newstart is making people sick and the Government must urgently increase the rate of Newstart to improve people's health, wellbeing and barriers to employment."
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 SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:40): I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency
'The low rate of Newstart is making people sick and the Government must urgently increase the rate of Newstart to improve people's wellbeing and barriers to employment'
Today we are talking about the low rate of Newstart and the fact that it's making people sick and that the government must urgently increase the rate of Newstart to improve people's wellbeing and barriers to employment. It comes as no surprise, unfortunately, that Newstart recipients suffer from poorer health outcomes.
This has been reinforced by findings from a Monash University report released on Monday, The health of disabilitysupport pension and Newstartallowance recipients. The study found: more than a third of Newstart recipients rated their health as poor or fair; 48 per cent of Newstart recipients reported experiencing a mental or behavioural problem; Newstart recipients reported visiting a dentist significantly less frequently than wage earners; Newstart recipients were significantly more likely than wage earners to report having five or more health conditions; Newstart recipients' risk of visiting a hospital was 1.5 to two times that of wage earners. These findings show the stark difference in the health status of people receiving Newstart compared to those who earn a wage. Other research has shown that being out of work and receiving unemployment payments is linked with higher rates of mortality and morbidity.
It's no wonder that people on Newstart and their kids are sick when they are forced to live on $40 a day. Last year the proportion of Australians seeking food relief increased from 46 per cent to 51 per cent. When I asked people about what it's like to live on Newstart, people told me that they cannot afford to eat. I will quote income support recipients on what it's like living on Newstart: 'Going hungry because you can only afford to eat once a day so your kids get meals'; 'Right now, I'm sitting here with my last $13 trying to work out how to make it stretch till Tuesday'; 'I go hungry a lot, and when you're hungry you feel hopeless. It's a constant state of living in despair'; 'I have gone without food to feed my son. I've been not letting him go to birthday parties because I can't afford a present to give. I've kept him home from school because I didn't have food to send or petrol to get him there.' There are currently 700,000 children living in poverty in Australia. Imagine the devastating impact the rate of Newstart is having on the health and wellbeing of these children. Evidence shows that growing up in poverty has wideranging impacts on the physical and psychological health of children.
People who are on Newstart can't afford to visit the doctor and buy essential medicines. People have told me that they are socially isolated because they don't have any money and can't afford to see friends because they need to buy their medication. Somebody else says: 'Living off Newstart means going without medication. This means that my condition is degenerating because I can't afford the medication to keep it stable.' This is an everyday reality for people who are trying to survive on Newstart. Now there are 200,000 people who are sick and disabled who are on Newstart because of the way that people are being kept off the disability support pension.
It's not just about people's physical health; it's also about people's mental ill-health. People talk about the fact that they are on Newstart and can't find work and the punitive approach of this government and how they feel stigmatised and how it affects their mental health. I have heard from many people around Australia who have talked about this impact. One person said: 'The depression associated with being financially way under the poverty line leads to mental health issues that are there for life, needing medication, which again costs money we don't have. You don't live on Newstart; you spiral down into poverty and depression, being treated like a criminal by compliance agencies and government policies.'
There have been people who are trying to survive on Newstart visiting the parliament this week, trying to explain to members of parliament what their lived experience is like. Particularly, Tracy and Imogen shared their experiences with me today. I urge all members of parliament to accept their offer to come and talk to them so that they can learn personally about their lived experience. We need to raise the rate of Newstart now. (Time expired)
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (16:45): I rise to speak on this matter of urgency from the Australian Greens and note the Morrison government is strongly committed to an income support system that is a safety net for people who need it the most whilst also ensuring the system remains fair for Australian taxpayers. I think we all understand that Newstart was never meant to be a replacement for a salary or wage. It is a transitional payment, a safety net for people while they are looking for work. Around two-thirds of jobseekers who are granted Newstart will exit income support within 12 months.
Welfare spending in Australia in 2018-19 was more than $172 billion, which represents 35 per cent of all government spending. It is our responsibility, the responsibility of government, to ensure that the social security and welfare system is sustainable into the future so that it can continue to provide support to those who are most in need when they need it most. As I have previously said in this chamber, every cent that is spent on welfare is a cent that has come from the hip pocket of working Australians. We must act responsibly.
When it comes to health and wellbeing, the Morrison government is investing in new mental health and primary care initiatives, new health infrastructure and new medical research that will mean real on-the-ground benefits for all Australians, not only those on Newstart. In my home state of Tasmania, the Morrison government's Tasmanian Health Plan is improving lives, protecting lives and saving lives. Funding for Tasmanian public hospitals will increase from $425 million a year to $525 million a year under a new hospitals agreement. This is in addition to the $730.4 million provided to support Mersey Community Hospital, record bulk-billing in Tasmania and more than 2,000 new medicines subsidised through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The $91.9 million plan significantly strengthens Tasmania's health system by addressing healthcare needs, filling critical service needs and providing affordable and accessible health services for more Tasmanians where and when they need them. Through the Tasmanian Health Plan we are delivering greater hospital and health services and infrastructure, new cancer infrastructure, more MRI units for patients when and where they need them, two extra diagnostic mammography units, medical research, more mental health support, improved alcohol and drug support and better access to primary care.
We are providing more support for more drug and alcohol workers in Tasmania by providing $1.1 million for three additional mental health and alcohol and drug support workers to help young Tasmanians work through their addiction. They will be on the ground working with existing health services in Northern Tasmania. We are investing $6.3 million into drug and alcohol rehabilitation, building a new 10-bed facility in the greater Burnie region and establishing a new eight-bed residential rehabilitation service in Circular Head to support those with substance issues in north-west Tasmania.
Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring people in Tasmania who have mental health concerns can access high-quality support where and when they need it by delivering more frontline services and innovative solutions to ensure that everyone has the best possible care when facing mental health challenges. We are investing $3.5 million over four years for two headspace centres to support youth mental health services in Tasmania. This will upgrade the Devonport satellite service to a centre and establish a new satellite service in Burnie. Headspace is the government's preferred method of service delivery for young people living with mental illness. It provides tailored and holistic mental health support, working closely with young people at a crucial point in their lives.
In 2017-18, more than 3,000 young Tasmanians accessed headspace services. The Morrison coalition government is investing $10.5 million to boost mental health support for adults, with a trial of adult community mental health centres. A new centre in my home town of Launceston will provide a supportive environment where people can receive psychological, counselling or other mental health services without requiring a prior appointment. That centre will operate over extended hours, seven days a week, and will provide a more-welcoming alternative to emergency departments for those in crisis. Individuals will also be connected to existing community mental health services in their local area to ensure ongoing integrated care.
The government provides a further safety net to help with the cost of health care through concession cards for recipients of Newstart. These recipients are automatically entitled to either a healthcare card or a pensioner concession card, depending on their circumstances. These cards provide access to bulk-billing, cheaper pharmaceutical benefits or prescriptions, and a lower medical safety net threshold, where the concession card holder may be eligible to receive additional Medicare benefits, with the threshold being just $680.70, compared with $2,133 for people without a concession card. Everyone who receives Newstart is also eligible for some form of additional assistance from the welfare system, such as rental assistance of up to $182 a fortnight for families; FTB Part A, up to $42.20 a fortnight per child for children aged 13 to 19 years; FTB Part B, up to $158.34 per family a fortnight for children under five years; a pharmaceutical allowance of up to $6.20 a fortnight; a telephone allowance of up to $175.20 a year; and an energy supplement of up to $12 a fortnight.
It is no secret that the Morrison coalition government is committed to getting people off welfare and into a job. As we all know, the best form of welfare is a job, with over 1.4 million jobs being created since we were elected, and there are 230,000 fewer working-age Australians on income support payments for the period between June 2014 and June 2018. We are now seeing the lowest level of working-age people receiving income support in 30 years, with the overall unemployment rate at 5.2 per cent. Our government is continually working to improve the support and pathways to employment for jobseekers, and we are committed to finding the best ways to support families and communities in places where high levels of welfare dependence coexist with high levels of social harm. For jobseekers receiving services through a jobactive provider, assistance can be provided to gain the tools, experience and skills to get and keep a job and break down the barriers to unemployment, such as providing additional assistance for jobseekers, including assistance with compiling and writing a CV or resume and assistance with purchasing clothes for a job interview or getting a haircut.
We also provide a range of programs to encourage people into work, like the Try, Test and Learn Fund, an individual support. Earlier today, in response to my question, the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston, updated the Senate on the work being done through the Try, Test and Learn Fund, helping long-term welfare recipients of all ages to find pathways to work.
In conclusion to my brief contribution on this matter of urgency, I would like to reiterate that the Morrison coalition government is delivering the job opportunities for Australians. We are reducing welfare dependency and offering more opportunities to assist people to move off welfare and into work.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (16:54): If you listened to those on the other side, you would think that life's quite rosy, really, for anyone on Newstart. However, a boost to Newstart is supported by a number of organisations. It's supported by the Business Council of Australia, the Reserve Bank, John Howard, John Hewson, Barnaby Joyce, Chris Richardson, KPMG, Ai Group, COTA, National Seniors, the Australian Local Government Association, COSBOA and the Small Business Association of Australia. So, obviously, everything is not as rosy as those on the other side would have us believe.
It's clear that Newstart is not working as it should and that it is causing great distress and harm to people. The reality is it's not possible to live on Newstart, with the low rate of payments making it even more difficult to re-enter the workforce. People are finding it difficult to meet transportation costs or to afford clothes for job interviews. Those on the government side say that Newstart is a temporary payment, that it's not there for living on and that people should get a job. But the reality is that the average person on Newstart has been on the payment for three years. Three years is not what I would call temporary.
Earlier this week I met with Jeremy from the Unemployed Workers Union. He has been on and off Newstart for the last few years. He is highly qualified and works freelance in the editing and publishing space. Sometimes he has a good amount of work, sometimes it dries up, and sometimes he can also manage to get casual jobs to help make ends meet. His situation is not unusual. In fact, over 130,000 Newstart recipients have a job but do not receive either enough hours or enough income to get them off the payment. The majority of Newstart recipients are desperate to find work, and they work hard, looking for work, to try to meet the compliance obligations Centrelink demands. So the narrative that this government puts forward that you can't leave the house without a job falling into your lap is complete nonsense. Instead of admitting that the economy is weakening and that there are not enough jobs to go around, the government wishes to blame jobseekers and implement punitive measures to distract from its complete incompetence.
Jeremy told me about how disheartening it can be to submit applications for many, many jobs and, more often than not, not even receive an acknowledgement of your application. Interviews are extremely rare because there are many times as many jobseekers as advertised jobs. In fact, the government's own figures show there are 19 job applicants for every job available. Of course, Newstart recipients also have issues accessing our stretched medical and mental health services. When the gap fee for a GP or a psychologist visit might be the whole of your food budget for a week, people often forgo their medical treatment, in order to survive. With its policies, this government, remarkably, seems to want to make things even worse for these people.
Older Australians experience particular difficulty in re-entering the workforce, due to structural barriers and age discrimination. The number of over-55s on Newstart has surged by a staggering 58,313 over a five-year period, according to the latest figures from the Department of Social Services. That means one in four Australians on Newstart are aged 55 or over—the single largest cohort of recipients of the allowance. Instead of having a plan to retrain and bring older workers back into the workforce, this government wants to subject them to humiliating drug tests. We oppose the drug testing of welfare recipients. Can I just say this is the third time the government has dusted off that policy. It's punitive and it's not going to work.
The government's desire to roll out nationally the cashless welfare card is also poorly thought through. I heard yesterday that drought-affected farming families will be rightly shocked, as I imagine they would be, by the suggestion that was made yesterday that they could be subject to the Morrison government's cashless welfare card. The government suggests that people should be in work, not on welfare. Well, guess what? Farmers are workers. Farmers are already at work. They live at work. This government needs to understand what it takes to survive on a drought-stricken farm. I'm wondering if the Nationals actually agree with that policy. Labor does not support a national rollout of the card.
Those opposite are a third-term government, but, as we on this side have said many times, they've got no policy agenda at all. They're an utter disgrace. They're blaming and shaming, basically, welfare recipients, such as people on Newstart. It's an absolute atrocity and it needs to stop. As I said, those on the other side are an utter disgrace, and it's absolutely clear to everybody. I will again give the list of those who support an increase in Newstart. A boost to Newstart is supported by the Business Council of Australia, the Reserve Bank, John Howard, John Hewson, Barnaby Joyce, Chris Richardson, KPMG, Ai Group, COTA—
Debate interrupted.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (17:00): I take this opportunity to acknowledge former Prime Minister the Hon. Julia Gillard in the chamber.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (17:00): Pursuant to order I now call Senator Marielle Smith to make her first speech. I ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her on this occasion.
Senator Marielle SMITH (South Australia) (17:00): I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I also acknowledge Senators Dodson, McCarthy and Lambie, as well as Linda Burney and Ken Wyatt, who sit in the other place. And I acknowledge the 39 Aboriginal language groups that make up the great state of South Australia. There has been enough debate, enough delay. It's time for a voice, treaty and truth.
Mr President, 293,000 children call South Australia home. Not one of them chose the hospital they were born in, the parents or grandparents they have or the postcode where they are growing up. But every single one of them deserves a fair start to life. A new senator has many responsibilities, and I will work tirelessly to fulfil them all. But no commitment means more to me than this: I've come here to stand up for the children of my state. As a Labor senator I'll be fighting for fairness in their future, because Labor is, and always has been, the party of fairness. The best way to deliver fairness is through the transformative power of good public policy, and the place to do that is in this parliament. No-one has more power to do good than those of us in this place—and we haven't a moment to waste, because, for the first time in our modern history, Australian children are set to inherit a future that is less fair than that of the generations that went before them. And, on too many indicators, it is our most vulnerable children who are suffering the most. More than seven percent of children in South Australia live in poverty, with those from our regions and in single-parent households the hardest hit. Children from disadvantaged areas are twice as likely to experience developmental vulnerability as their peers in the wealthiest areas. Whether we look at health, education, child protection or justice, we are failing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children the most, children who also carry the scars of past injustice and trauma forward.
These outcomes aren't inevitable; they are failures of public policy, failures that result from the choices we make or don't make, failures that have left too many children starting way behind the mark. Australia has long taken as granted the notion that generation-on-generation economic growth will drive improvements to our living standards. But that is not the reality for the next generation. Low wage growth, underemployment, unaffordable housing, the precariousness of the gig economy and increasing inequality of wealth mean young Australians are set to inherit a less prosperous and less secure future. These inequities are further compounded by our changing climate, the effects of which will hit the poor and the young hardest. The lifeblood of my state, our precious river, is also set to suffer in a way the next generation simply cannot afford. But none of this inequity is inevitable. Australia should be able to deliver a better deal for the next generation than the previous one had. Successive Labor governments have strived to deliver this through nation-changing policy reforms such as workplace rights, Medicare and the PBS, extending access to higher education, and universal superannuation.
My own family's story speaks to our great national story of generational improvement. My ancestors came to Australia by boat, some in chains, and all were able to build a better life than those who went before them. On my father's side the first to arrive were William Kable and Susannah Holmes, who came on the First Fleet after their shared death sentences were commuted to one-way tickets to the new colony. They became the first Europeans to marry in Australia and the first to successfully launch a civil lawsuit against a captain who had stolen their belongings on the way over. It was a lawsuit that, as felons, they would not have been able to launch back in Britain itself. As convicted thieves, this was not without irony, but it was also a clear sign that in a new land there could be new ways and a new life. On the other side of my family, the promise of a better existence lured out three generations from north London—my great-grandparents, grandparents and mother.
Blue skies were a bonus, but the real transformation for both sides of my family happened through the classroom. My paternal grandfather never finished primary school, yet my parents were both the first in their families to attend university, thanks to federal government policy and a great foundation in the public education system. My siblings and I grew up in an era where Whitlam and Hawke had thrown open the doors of university, and we strode through those doors with eager and grateful steps. In short, my family went from a mid-primary school education to masters level in just two generations. That's the power of education—to unlock opportunity and break down social barriers. It should be available to everyone. And, since it is disadvantaged children who begin life so far behind the mark, it is there that our efforts and our resources must be aimed.
For all of our achievement and promise, educational equality remains the great unfinished work of the parliament and the nation. Through the Gonski report, like the Karmel report before it, Labor attempted to fundamentally reset the educational equation, and on their return to government the coalition swiftly acted to snuff out the promise of equity, fairness and reform. This was a deliberate theft of opportunity from the kids who need our help the most. Few policy failures have been as reckless and unforgiveable as that, because being told they deserve second best is something no child should ever live to hear.
But, even more important than schooling and higher education, is the early education that comes before it. The single most significant policy change I am determined to see during my time in this place is a radical re-draw of the way we fund and deliver early childhood education and care, because the most meaningful way we can smash generational disadvantage is through universal, quality and free education during the early years. If we hold our fire until school age, it will be too late. In the first thousand days of a child's life, critical brain connections are formed. If a child does not develop well during this period and they are not exposed to the right mix of play-based learning, love, nutrition and nurture, then they cannot reach their full potential. That's why we must act now.
I was so proud of Labor's policy to fund preschool for three-year-olds at the last election, and we must not abandon it. In fact, we must extend it to ensure all children can access world-leading early education and care, regardless of what their parents do, how much they earn or where they live. In early childhood education, we have to be bold in our vision, broad in our approach and brave in our means of delivery, and we need to do so in partnership with our early years educators, in whose hands we place our youngest and most vulnerable minds and yet whose critical work we choose to undervalue and underpay. Again, this is a choice—a policy choice and a values choice—and we must change our path.
I first volunteered for the Australian Labor Party some 16 years ago, because within it I found a political home for my Christian values of social justice and fairness. Throughout my career, I have strived to put these values into practice, through the vehicle of public policy, to make our world better for the children within it. I had the great honour of working in the most recent Labor government with Minister Kate Ellis to deliver the most significant quality reforms to early childhood education and care since the sector began. My passion for children has taken me to West Africa, where I volunteered with an NGO fighting child exploitation and forced labour. And I've worked for the incredible Julia Gillard to extend the opportunity of school education to some of the most disadvantaged places in our world. As a Labor senator, my focus will now be on advocating for the children of my state and their future, because, like children all around the world, their voices do not fill chambers of power and influence like this. Indeed, they don't even get to vote for the voices that do.
An essential part of our job as elected representatives is listening to voters. But we should also be listening to the people who can't yet vote at all. So, in preparation for this speech, I sought counsel from some of my younger constituents about what they want us to deliver for them, to let their voices fill this place. Their proposals are worthy of our consideration. Every child I spoke to wanted all Australians to be healthy. They had heaps of ideas for me: 'Eat your fruit and veg,' 'Don't smoke or take drugs,' and, 'Don't die young.' One told me this was all really important; otherwise I would get mouldy teeth!
I wish I could have told these kids that our public health policies are securing a healthy future for everyone, but that's not the case. Generational improvements in life expectancy have been assumed over the last century, but this growth is slowing. If we want to see continual improvements in health, we must tackle the things we know we can prevent, like disease caused by smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse. As a student of public policy at the London School of Economics I saw significant opportunities in applying behavioural economics to these sorts of public health challenges, yet Australia still lags a long way behind other places in using this policy tool.
We must also do more to tackle the regional health divide in Australia, especially in maternal health policy. My Aunty Lynette, from Port Lincoln, felt the impacts of this health divide in a way no mother ever should. Her daughter, born prematurely, needed a level of care only available in Adelaide. As a result, for 17 long weeks, mother and newborn child were separated, with only fortnightly visits and photographs to sustain them. It was a heart-wrenching pain that Lynette felt—one that's still felt by women across regional Australia. These women have fewer options and less support to have their children than women in metro areas. This is especially true for Indigenous women. Horrifically, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children die at twice the rate of other Australian babies. If every child is to get a fair start in life, that must begin with good-quality obstetric and paediatric care, no matter where they live. Again, it is a policy choice about what we are willing to value and resource.
Of course, our health isn't just about our physical health. For the three million Australians living with depression and anxiety, and every other Australian with ill mental health, we need to do better. The fact that half of all mental health conditions start before the age of 14 means the time to act is in childhood. I know the consequences of untreated childhood mental health conditions all too well. It's hard to quantify the pain that could have been spared family members that I love had they received the right treatment in time, before their ill health spiralled into drug abuse and self-harm. Until we take mental health seriously and fund it properly, more and more young people will suffer—and their suffering will be on our watch.
The second thing that South Australian children have told me is that they think Australia should have a policy of treating boys and girls the same. Zoe from Prospect told me that boys and girls are 'equally good' and therefore should get to do the same things. For Atticus from Port Adelaide, in practice that means they should both be allowed to become Prime Minister, but—and Atticus was very clear on this point—'only if they are not Liberals'!
Our kids can see that boys and girls aren't always treated equally in Australia, and they don't have to look very far. The gender pay gap and the associated super gap remain pervasive. This has contributed to older women forming the fastest-growing cohort of homelessness in Australia. Domestic violence disproportionately impacts women, as does the burden of unpaid work. This year we celebrate 125 years of women's suffrage in South Australia. But I am sure our suffragettes had higher hopes for the future of equality. Despite the Senate being just a whisker off parity, women still make up only 37 per cent of the federal parliament as a whole and 27 per cent of South Australia's parliament. Women are also significantly underrepresented at board and executive levels in the private sector—something I've witnessed firsthand in my own board work.
We cannot address these statistics without a calm consideration of quotas. Quotas require organisations to consider their female members differently—to see their leadership potential, not just their support capabilities. When there aren't any women amongst them, it forces organisations to ask why and to do something about it. To those in this place who have suggested that quotas push merit to one side, I would add that women are half the population and we have half of all the merit and ability that exists in human society. That's why I don't carry a shred of shame for being a woman representing a party with affirmative action as its bridge to a more equal future, because AA didn't require us to lower our standards; it required us to raise them. When I look at the women on our side who are serving now—not least our leadership team, Senators Wong and Keneally—and when I look back at the many Labor women who have served here before me, I am deeply proud to count myself among them. Of course, when the girls and boys I spoke to have grown up, I hope that quotas won't be required. But the evidence tells us that, for now, they are.
The last thing these children told me was that our policies should ensure they get to have a good job one day. For Harley from Murray Bridge, a good job means being able to buy lots of toys. For Violet from Adelaide's west, it means you can give your kids lots of pocket money. When I was their age I learnt the importance of a good job in a way no family ever wants to. My dad had spent his working life building a business, only for it to collapse. I know what it means to have everything on the line in a family business—because we had everything on the line. I will always remember his distraught face as we stood on the porch and I asked why our car was being taken away. Divorce, disruption and separation followed. It's a story that so many families will recognise when hardship hits. Australia's policy of a genuine safety net was there for us. It meant that my fantastic public education was never interrupted nor our visits to the doctor ever limited by this turn of events in my family's life. And my dad was fortunate: he got a new job and eventually rebuilt the business. I've been so proud to work in it, too, and be part of its journey to become a significant operator of public transport, both in Australia and around the world. And, of course, my time in the family business also afforded me the opportunity to learn an exceptional life skill: how to drive an articulated bus!
But, to deliver good jobs to South Australia's kids, we need policies that will forge a strong economy, because—in my state especially—a strong and resilient economy will not build itself. I firmly believe our best days as a state are ahead of us, but they will only be so if the South Australian senators in this place fight for our future every single day. We'll get more jobs in our state if we work in partnership with business to attract long-term and meaningful investment. And those jobs will be good jobs if we work with our union movement to empower workers to secure fair pay and conditions. Like millions of Australians, I have long been a union member and have benefited from the union movement's work. For so many victories—like annual leave, penalty rates, maternity leave, super—we have them to thank.
But, of course, the fight for good jobs is nowhere near over. Rapid technology change is driving new and unprecedented threats to the security and safety of work. The gig economy, for all its conveniences, threatens the basic rights of workers, including to fair pay and super. It must do better. I commend the Transport Workers Union, and Senator Sheldon in particular, for their work here. For retail workers—of whom I once was one, and who my union, FDA, passionately represents—artificial intelligence and automation are disrupting frontline service and back-of-house roles. These workers, mostly women, mostly young and mostly low-income, cannot afford to be further displaced or devalued. I accept that technological change is inevitable, and it offers opportunities for Australia. But its benefits need to be better distributed and workers need to be better supported in this changing work landscape. The work of our union movement remains unfinished and important. In the fight for fairness in our children's future, I'm with them.
Our children deserve a better deal than the one handed down to previous generations. We can deliver this, but doing so requires us to change the way we design and implement public policy in Australia and to focus beyond the next three years to the next 30 years.
I will use my time in this place to fight for a fairer future for South Australia's children—to stand with Harley, Atticus, Zoe, Violet and every other child in my state. In doing so, I also stand with all of their families, no matter where they live, what they do or who they love. I stand with families who have been here for 60,000 years, and families who have just arrived. I stand with families broken, families mending, families with many kids and families with none. I stand with families with one parent or families where grandparents have had to step in. I stand with them all.
I know that the ability to serve them in this place is not an individual achievement of mine alone. Each of us are the sum of the care, confidence and support placed in us by those that we love and respect. And so, I acknowledge my own family now and the other important people who enabled my journey here today. Firstly, to the people of the greatest state, South Australia: I'm so humbled by the trust you have placed in me to represent you here, and I promise to work tirelessly for you all.
I acknowledge my parents, Neil, Karen and Colin and my siblings who are represented in the gallery by Bart and my sister-in-law, Chelsea, today. To my mother-in-law, Anne: thank you for your willingness to spend half your life with me here in Canberra so that I can be with my son, who's next to you, and do the job that I love. I could not do this without you. To my son's godparents, Brooke and Andy, my friends and my staff: you're all superstars, and I'm stoked that you picked me. Special thanks to Ben Hubbard and my dear friend Timothy Watts for your wise council.
Thank you to our state secretary, Reggie Martin and Aemon Burke, who have both shown me so much support over so many years. I also thank future Premier Peter Malinauskas, Sonia Romeo and Josh Peak for their support, but more importantly for their fierce advocacy for the things worth fighting for in our state. My parliamentary colleagues, state and federal, have been a wonderful source of advice and camaraderie, notably my good friends Senator Alex Gallacher and Amanda Rishworth, as well as Nick, Steve, Zoe, Emily and Chris. I also thank my colleagues from the SDA, TWU, FSU and AMWU.
I especially want to thank Senator Don Farrell for his support of me and so many other women in our movement. Senator Farrell has backed in women where it counts—into winnable seats in our parliament—time and time again. Don, your wife, Nimfa, and your daughters have everything to be proud of.
To our members and volunteers who sacrifice so much time to travel with me from Port Lincoln to Murray Bridge, Whyalla to Mount Gambier, Port Pirie to the Barossa, to share Labor's plans for fairness—thank you. I acknowledge the incredible work especially of Amy Ware, Meagan Spencer, Tom Carrick-Smith and Tara Fatehi. Special thanks to the Labor Women's Network, especially to Victoria, Young Labor Unity, our candidates and volunteers, notably: Liam Golding, Michael Iammarrone, Jordon, Joe, Ben, David, Bez, Mikaela and the door-knocking crew.
I've been fortunate throughout my life to be surrounded by strong, passionate and remarkable women, but I've been fortunate beyond words to have the mentorship of two in particular who've travelled from Adelaide to join me today. To Kate Ellis, a great trailblazer of our movement and our parliament: simply, and on so many levels, I would not be standing here without you—thank you. And to Julia Gillard, whose contribution to this place and legacy to our country is immeasurable: Julia, your belief in me has been sustaining, your advocacy humbling and your friendship is one of the most cherished I have ever and will ever have. I promise to make you proud here.
And now to thank my little family. To my much-loved husband, Clint: thank you for the sacrifices you make so I can be here, for all you do for our family and for being my safe space in this world. I wouldn't want to do the adventure of life with anyone but you. I acknowledge my incredible stepchildren Toby, Gemma and Lachlan, and the newest light of my life, my son, Benjamin. Ben, when you were born, you rewrote me. I apologise upfront for the times I will let you down because I'm in this place and not with you. I hope you forgive me, and I hope you understand I'm here because of my belief in the power of this place to change Australia for the better, and the sense of public service within me that compels me to be a part of that. May that belief grow in you too one day.
My kids are my purpose and meaning in life, but South Australia's 293,000 children will be my purpose and meaning in this place. I will be standing up for their future here with fairness as the goal and good public policy as the means to achieve it. Our tradition of intergenerational fairness has defined Australia. It's our most fundamental value as a nation, yet it is slipping away before our eyes. We are handing our children a lesser future than the generations that went before them. I believe our children deserve better, and I believe we can deliver that to them. In my journey of parliamentary service, however long or short, I will settle for nothing less.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (17:28): Order! Pursuant to order, I will now call Senator Walsh to make her first speech. I again ask honourable senators to extend the usual courtesies to her on this occasion.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (17:29): Thank you, Mr President, and thank you, colleagues. I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we're meeting on today and pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. And I accept the invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart—the invitation to walk alongside First Nations Australians in a movement for a better future, a future founded on a voice to parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, on truth-telling and on treaty.
I'm proud to be joined today in the gallery by members of my union, the newly formed United Workers Union, a union of 150,000 people performing essential jobs around Australia: cleaners, hospo workers, early childhood educators, food production workers, farm workers and many more. You are a huge part of what led me here to this incredible place—this place that has so much promise, the promise of the power to make change, to build a country that brings security and opportunity to all.
My journey to this place started back in the 1970s and eighties in the middle-ring, middle-class suburbs of Melbourne. I was born as Whitlam came to power and was a teenager in the heyday of Labor heroes Hawke and Keating. I'd like to say that I was engaged and inspired by politics from an early age. But instead I spent most of my teenage years watching Neighbours and listening to Spandau Ballet. We lived in a suburb my brother, sister and I now affectionately call 'North Boring'—otherwise known as North Balwyn—and big thanks to my brother and sister for being here today in the gallery. Nothing much happened in 'North Boring', as you might imagine.
Like so many people from that part of Melbourne, though, I am very grateful for what was a great start in life, with the economic security so many Australians strive for, in a household with two stable, secure jobs and a suburb with great schools and services. I strongly believe that our biggest task here is to open the door to the protection and opportunity that good, secure jobs can bring to all Australians. To me a well-paid, stable job is the foundation for a good life in this country. Without one you really just don't get out of the gates. With one the door is opened to the middle-class security that I think all Australians want for themselves and their children—security that delivers the freedom to enjoy life today and the confidence to plan for the future.
My mother's path to that life was not straightforward, and her journey was a major influence on me. Mum grew up in Melbourne's inner north before it was the place to be. At the local convent school she discovered a love of books and flourished. She was the first person in her family to go to university and she absolutely loved it. But she had to fight to finish university after having her first child, scandalously, out of wedlock in 1967, a time when unmarried mothers were often unable to keep their children and when married mothers were regularly barred from work. Before she died in 2011 Mum told us the story of her younger years and how she toted her small baby around to classes, determined to finish. She did, and she was always grateful that she was able to get an education and, as she saw it, to open up her mind and her life. She was able to pass on that love of education and her love of books to many children through her 40-year career as an English teacher. From her I inherited a real sense that there was a rope to climb in life and a belief that everyone, no matter where they come from, should be supported to be their very best by society as a whole. And I knew very clearly how important it was for women to be able to determine our own futures.
Mum would be really proud to be here today. She was absolutely thrilled to come with me to hear Prime Minister Julia Gillard's 2010 election night speech in Melbourne and to live to see our first female Prime Minister. And she would be just as thrilled to see me here with another strong Labor role model: our Senate leader, Penny Wong. Mum was a staunch Labor voter, and my dad, who also passed away several years ago, came from good Labor stock too. His own father was a committed socialist and paid-up Labor Party member. I'm very grateful today to my parents' lifelong friends, Mary and Paul O'Connor, for being here in my parents' place. To dad's sister, Trish Costigan, who I know is watching from home, thank you for your support. Thank you also to Mary Rose Hayter and Gerry Costigan for being here today. From my own university days, I'm blessed to have made some fantastic friends who've stayed the course. The venues for our catch-ups may have changed from the local pub to the local dog park and from the latest bar to the ladies book club, but the friendships I've made with strong, smart and funny women are the best. Thank you so much for being here.
Like my mother, I was passionate about education and I followed that passion to spend over a decade in universities and policy centres both here and in the United States. In the US, I researched the loss of decent, stable manufacturing jobs and the growth in their place of low-paid and insecure work in service industries—jobs that often don't do the job of delivering the incomes and the security people need to get ahead. This is a trend that has really shaped the trajectory of the US economy, society and politics right through to today. It has left millions of people—often women, migrant workers and people of colour—surviving on a bare minimum wage, just one pay cheque away from crisis. And it has left the people who have known the benefits of decent, stable jobs looking over their shoulders with fear for the future. Sometimes that fear has been directed as anger towards those in even more insecure and vulnerable positions, in particular towards migrants seeking a better life. And it has caused a massive wealth divide between the haves and the have-nots. I still remember how shocked I was to see the pointy end of that divide in the US—people sleeping under bridges, while others drove into heavily gated communities in the suburbs each night.
That was really the beginning of a political awakening in me. It took leaving Australia for me to understand just how much we need to fight for what we have here. Joining the Australian union movement was the best way to put that fight into practice, and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. In this country too, we've been hit by these same forces of economic restructuring for decades without any consensus as a nation about how we can rebuild the well-paid, stable jobs that underpin access to middle-class security and opportunity. In Australia today, more people than ever need two jobs to make ends meet. Forty per cent of Australians are in insecure work, casual jobs, contract jobs, labour hire and ABN jobs. Gig and shift-by-SMS jobs are more common. Wage theft is the norm in sectors like hospitality and farms. Women are still paid less than men for work of equal value. Migrant workers today in our country face extreme exploitation, and wage growth across the board has been flat now for years. And none of this is because we can't afford to provide good, secure jobs in Australia. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and it makes me angry that so many people are being denied the opportunity they deserve.
In the thousands of conversations I've had with members of my union over the years, I've heard one defining characteristic of a good job over and over again—that is, respect: respect and recognition for your hard work and the contribution you make; respect in your pay packet with a decent living wage; and respect with the job security you need to be able to enjoy life today and retire with enough for the future. I've met some inspirational people in my time with my union who dedicate themselves to fighting for that respect and for good, secure jobs for all Australians.
Gamal came to Australia from Sudan, where he had a career as a lawyer. Over the past 20 years he's worked overnight as a shopping centre cleaner. He's also been a proud union member fighting for fairer wages. Now in his 60s, Gamal still works nights, public holidays and weekends for a full-time wage not much greater than $40,000 a year. He will never give up fighting for fair and decent wages for all Australians.
Kerrie is a career early-childhood educator who is passionate about caring for and educating children. Kerrie uses her annual leave days to perform her official duties as president of the union, because she believes the union movement is the only way that highly skilled educators who earn around half the average wage will win the respect and recognition they deserve.
Andrew has been a union delegate for many years at an industrial bakery. He wants to see companies compete on the basis of quality and innovation, not by cutting wages—a trend he has been witnessing over the last decade. I know Andrew worries about the future of young bakers coming through when the jobs that are growing are almost all lower-paid and labour-hire jobs.
Anna is a young hospitality activist who was fired for speaking out about her below-award wages. She then started a campaign against wage theft in Melbourne, and her campaign inspired thousands of other young hospo workers to join their union, stand up and speak out. It exposed the absolute exploitation in the sector and brought to account some of the biggest names in the industry.
I am so pleased that Gamal, Kerrie, Andrew and Anna are here today. They're joined by the leadership of the two unions that now form the United Workers Union. Thank you to the national secretaries and presidents of both United Voice and the National Union of Workers: Jo Schofield, Tim Kennedy, Gary Bullock and Caterina Cinanni. Thanks also to the state secretaries who are here—Ben Redford, Susie Allison, Mel Gatfield and Lyndal Ryan—and to three longstanding members of my Victorian team: AJ, Tim and Ange. As a leadership team you have always and will always put union members front and centre in everything you do.
The new United Workers Union will be a critical force in rebuilding respect, security and opportunity in Australia. It has formed on a core belief that we are much stronger together, and it has formed to shake things up. Contrary to the current narrative, the big challenges of economic restructuring will not be solved by individuals just trying harder. We're told: 'It's all up to you. If you work harder, you can get ahead. The harder you work, the more you earn.' On that logic the members of my union, who are here today, would be millionaires. We're told: 'If you're not being paid enough to live or if you're stuck in a casual job, then just go out and get another one. Or just wait; we'll cut company tax rates, and, trust us, that'll be passed on to your pay packets.' Governments getting out of the way; people just trying a bit harder; waiting for the wealth to trickle down—that's not a recipe for opportunity for all. It's a tired, self-serving fantasy, and it's a fantasy that has delivered flatlining wages while profits and CEO salaries soar. It's delivered an explosion of job insecurity, low pay and underemployment, which in turn has sucked consumer demand out of the economy. Even conservative economists are screaming from the balcony that something has to give.
We are facing a jobs crisis in our country today, a crisis of persistent low and stagnant wages and a crisis of job insecurity, and we need to change direction now. The time for governments getting out of the way is over. It's time for governments to get back in the driver's seat and back to work. We need to apply a whole-of-government secure jobs pledge to everything we do and be accountable to the Australian people on that pledge. We need a secure jobs pledge that makes us assess every government decision against a simple but critical question: does it create decent, stable jobs with respect, or does it put more Australians on the path to insecurity?
As a first step in that pledge, governments need to start working with union members like Gamal, Kerrie, Andrew and Anna, not against them. Fundamentally, Australians need more power through their unions, not less, more power to win fair wages and stable jobs and more power to build industries that thrive on being the best at what they do, not on treating their workers the worst. They need more power to operate effectively in the changing world of work. The union members who have the courage to stand up for something better for themselves and for all Australians need more respect from government, not less. To those union members I say that if you are ready to stand up and speak out then I'm ready to stand with you.
A secure jobs pledge also means a new national focus on delivering jobs that bring respect, jobs we can count on, jobs we can plan a future on. It means mobilising the resources of government to actively plan for decent, stable jobs in everything we do. A secure jobs pledge means kickstarting investment in stable manufacturing work in new and sustainable industries, because we as a nation have all but abandoned those blue-collar jobs. If we do nothing, global markets will continue to come for those jobs and the communities that rely on them. Companies can move on to new investments and new regions when it suits them, but people stay. Without a strong, diverse economic base, too many communities can be left behind.
A secure jobs pledge means assessing whether privatisation of services promotes decent, stable jobs and, if in fact it just means cutting wages and cutting job security, it means saying no. It also means respecting migrants who come here to work, increasingly on short-term visas. It means guaranteeing them greater protection, including international students, who are so important to our economy but so often exploited in our workplaces today. A secure jobs pledge means guaranteeing good, stable jobs for the women who work in the fastest growing area of the economy: the government funded childcare, aged-care and disability sectors. Today these jobs are undervalued and underpaid, but they are essential and the women who perform them are essential too. If we delivered on our pledge, in this sector alone we would open the gates to middle-class security and opportunity for hundreds of thousands of Australian women.
Finally, what about a secure jobs pledge for the First Nations people who today work alongside other Australians doing the same work but for half the pay as part of the misnamed Community Development Program? In my time in this place, I want to see us get right into the task of rebuilding well-paid, secure jobs for all Australians. I don't want to see the people who are lucky enough to have those jobs today looking over their shoulders in fear for tomorrow. I do want to see us extend the protection and opportunity that decent work can bring.
We are so fortunate to be one of the wealthiest nations on earth. We can afford to do better. We need to do better if we want to change the course of our economy today. And we are not just a stronger economy with good, secure jobs as our foundation; we are a stronger society. We're stronger when we can all look to the future with confidence and move forward together. So let's not tell Australians it's all up to them, alone. Let's not tell them our job here in Canberra is to get out of their way. We have the power here to make change, and it's our job to use it. We have the power to deliver the respect, security and opportunity that all Australians deserve. So let's get to work and not walk away.
MATTERS OF URGENCY
Newstart Allowance
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The low rate of Newstart is making people sick and the Government must urgently increase the rate of Newstart to improve people's health, wellbeing and barriers to employment.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (17:54): There are a million different reasons that Newstart is too low. Of course it's time to raise it—we should have done it years ago. The government says they want people on Newstart to get a job, but when they do the government penalises them. If someone on Newstart works anything more than three hours to try to keep their head above water and the wolf from the door, this government takes half the money they earn. Newstart recipients are being taxed more than millionaires. That sounds incredible, but it's true. A Newstart recipient faces a higher effective marginal tax rate than the Prime Minister. The government says that losing 32c in the dollar is discouraging people from work, but it takes 60c in the dollar from people trying to get a foothold back in the job market. If you're on youth allowance, you can earn over $200 a week without losing any payment. If you're on Newstart, your payment rate is the same, but if you earn over 50 bucks you start losing half your money. The payment for jobseekers penalises work. Let that sink in.
Can't we let them have one shift a week without punishing them for it? You can't keep punching down; you've got to give people a leg-up too. Stop thinking up ways to make the lives of people on Newstart worse and start thinking of solutions and ways to make things better. For some that means going off drugs and into work. You go to these trial sites for the cashless debit card, and people are volunteering to be put on it. They're doing that because they think it's a circuit-breaker. They do it out of hope, and I'm inclined to give them that bit of hope. Some have a problem where they've trained and worked for years in a job that no longer exists. Some of these people have been out of work for so long that, every time they go to an interview and they're asked about the two-year gap in their employment history, they have to say they've been out of work. Every new employer hears that and thinks, 'Well, if nobody else thinks this person is worth hiring, I'm not going to risk it either.'
Those people keep fronting up in their best suit and their biggest smile and they keep getting knocked down. And we tell them: get back up or lose everything. We should be on their side. Let's give them some light. Let's give them some hope. And while we're at it we can actually give them some dignity back. I think that is the best thing this parliament can do. If you do not want to raise the Newstart allowance then, for goodness sake, the simple answer is this, and it won't cost you people anything: give them more hours to work before you start penalising them and taxing them at a higher rate. It's an absolute embarrassment; I'll be honest with you. That's all we're asking here. Give them 10 or 12 hours a week before you start penalising them. A carrot at the end of the stick—that's what it's all about. If you don't put that carrot at the end of the stick, you're going nowhere. It's as simple as that.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (17:57): It's interesting when you think about the name 'Newstart'. Newstart is exactly that: a means of support to enable a new start. It's really tough to be unemployed, especially when you're met with barriers to accessing work; there's no denying this. What's important to remember, though, is that our government provides a whole suite of support to working-age Australians to give them the best chance of independence. Newstart was never meant to be a salary or wage replacement. It's a safety net for people, while they look for work.
When we talk about Newstart, we need to remember that we're talking about a broad spectrum of Australians. Sometimes I feel that the conversation around Newstart can be skewed towards young people. Given that Australia is an ageing society, I'd like to focus on what our government has done to support older Australians to seek employment or stay working for longer. The Morrison government recognises the contribution older Australians make to our community, the economic benefits of their experience and the desire of many to continue working. Recent figures show that more than 100,000 jobs have been created for Australians over 55, which is real progress in improving participation in the labour market for older people. However, we do recognise that some older Australians find it difficult to transition into new jobs following career or life changes. That's why the government is investing in a range of initiatives to assist older Australians to participate in the workforce.
For example, the 2018-19 budget measure More Choices for a Longer Life Package included jobs and skills measures, like connecting retrenched workers to supports and services. We're also trialling a new skills and training incentive to encourage lifelong learning and help workers aged 45 to 70 gain new skills for future workforce opportunities. It complements the Skills Checkpoint for Older Workers Program, which commenced in December 2018.
The 2017-18 budget included the Mature Age Employment Package to provide additional assistance to jobseekers aged 50 years or over. Within this package the Career Transition Assistance program, now rolled out nationally, helps mature-age participants in jobactive identify work opportunities in their local labour market and ways to reskill, develop resilience strategies and improve digital skills. This package is also expanding and enhancing the National Work Experience Program to provide work experience opportunities, establishing Pathway to Work pilots to connect mature-age jobseekers with employers and to prepare and train participants for specific vacancies. These complement the Restart wage subsidy that provides up to $10,000 to encourage businesses to hire and retain mature-age employees.
Regardless of age, the government remains focused on moving Australians off Newstart and into work. I note that the Morrison government has had substantial success in pursuing this goal over recent years. The proportion of Australians receiving working-age income support payments, including those aged between 55 and 64, has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years. There were 230,000 fewer working-age recipients on income support payments between June 2014 and June 2018.
As I mentioned before, Australia is an ageing society. Over the past six years, the proportion of the Australian population aged between 55 and 64 has grown at a faster rate than the working age population in general so, in some ways, it's unsurprising that there are more Australians aged 55 to 64 as a proportion of the Newstart cohort than there were in 2013. I'd like to note, however, that a higher rate of Newstart allowance is paid to single recipients aged 60 years and over after nine continuous months on payments. These recipients are also automatically issued a pensioner concession card.
For any Australian, seeking employment can be a tough time. As our Prime Minister has said, though, the focus of this government is to get people into a job and off welfare. To make this a reality, over 1.4 million jobs have been created since we were elected. That's around 240,000 a year. This compares to just 155,000 on average under Labor. We will continue to invest in jobactive and disability employment services to help people to get and keep a job. As I said earlier, everyone who receives Newstart is eligible for some form of additional assistance from the welfare system, such as rent assistance, family tax benefit parts A and B, pharmaceutical allowance, telephone allowance and an energy supplement. Welfare costs more than $172 billion in 2018-19, representing more than one in three dollars, or 35 per cent of all spending by the government.
It's a responsibility of government to ensure our social security and welfare system is sustainable into the future so that it can continue to provide support to those most in need. It's easy for Labor to sit in opposition and say that this government should raise Newstart as they said during the federal campaign, but Labor doesn't have a serious policy in relation to Newstart. Their so-called policy is to hold a review with a view to increasing Newstart. They've not costed this proposal or indicated how it impacts on the budget bottom line. If Labor want to raise Newstart, they need to be up-front with the Australian people and tell us how they propose to pay for an increase.
The Labor Party played a cruel joke on Australians in the lead up to the election, claiming they would review the rate of Newstart, but they did not budget for any increase. Prior to the election, the policy was a review—and then a review—with no view of lowering the rate. Labor have not been clear on what they offer to people trying to get off welfare and into work.
The difference between the coalition and Labor when it comes to welfare spending is that only the coalition is able to maintain the sustainability of the system. When Labor were in office, the rate of increase of spending on welfare far outpaced the rate of growth in tax revenue. Labor's position on this important welfare payment changes almost every day. This is not an issue where it's fair to throw around empty promises or to trivialise for the sake of political gain. We're talking about real people who need to know that, while they're seeking employment, we'll provide them with a Newstart allowance and continue to create initiatives and opportunities to access skills, education and ultimately, jobs.
One such initiative is program called Try, Test and Learn. The Try, Test and Learn Fund aims to generate new insights into what works to reduce long-term welfare dependency, by creating pathways towards education and employment. As of 17 July 2019, more than 2,000 people have benefited through projects supported through the Try, Test and Learn Fund, including 700 people attending over 3,000 mentoring sessions and 1,000 people completing education and skills training sessions.
The Morrison government's focus on a strong economy is working. We're delivering the job opportunities that Australians need. This government has seen the largest increase in jobs since the global financial crisis, with over 1.4 million jobs created since we were elected. The proportion of Australians receiving working-age income support payments has fallen to its lowest level, so I'd say, if we take a moment to look at the bigger picture of what Newstart is actually for and what the government is doing to get people off it and into jobs, then in its current form it is fit for purpose. That said, we will continue to grow jobs and ensure that everyone has adequate access to skills, training and education in order to gain the employment that is fit for their purpose.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:05): I draw your attention to this simple statement by the CEO of the Tasmanian Council of Social Services, Kym Goodes:
For Newstart to work it needs to be enough to cover the basics, so people who are looking for a job, studying, caring for children or recovering from injury or illness can live with dignity, without the stress of juggling debt …
It's a simple, rational statement that makes perfect sense, yet this government is completely deaf to its logic. We've heard over the last year from literally dozens of respected organisations who support an increase in the rate of Newstart. The economic case for an increase has been laid out time and time again. The Australian economy is slowing to frightening levels, and one of the most obvious ways to stimulate it would be to increase the rate of Newstart, because we know that Newstart recipients will spend it in their local community, at their local supermarket, corner store and pharmacy. But the Morrison government has turned its back on this economic advice, desperately clinging to the notion of a budget surplus that may well be gained at the cost of a recession.
Less discussed is the impact of Newstart on people's health, but, if you care to listen to our health workers, social workers, first responders, charities and support agencies, they can tell you all about it. Being out of work and receiving unemployment benefits is linked with higher mortality and morbidity. Mental health conditions are more common among Australians receiving Newstart, parenting payments and the disability support pension. People trying to subsist on Newstart are the poorest of the poor, at the bottom of the lowest socioeconomic grouping in our country. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2018 report stated that, compared with Australians who are comfortably off, those in the lowest socioeconomic group are 2.6 times as likely to have diabetes; 2.4 times as likely to state cost as a barrier to seeing a dentist; 2.3 times as likely to state cost as a barrier to filling a prescription; and 2.1 times as likely to die of potentially avoidable causes. So someone on Newstart for any length of time is 2.1 times more likely to die of avoidable causes, and someone on Newstart is more than twice as likely as any member of this place to die from avoidable causes. The low rate of Newstart not only makes it more difficult to re-enter the workforce, as people find it difficult to meet transport costs, afford clothes for job interviews and access computers, but also makes it difficult to feed yourself, leave your house, maintain friendships and family ties, care for those you love, stay clean and warm, and form and maintain the human relationships we all need in order to live with hope and dignity.
In my office this week, I met a woman in her 40s who is homeless for the second time in her life. She lost her latest home when she lost her job. She can't get a rental because of the low rate of her income from her part-time job supplemented by Newstart. No-one will give her a lease. In order not to lose all her possessions, she has rented a small storage locker, but of course you can't get rental assistance on a storage locker. And you can't sleep in a storage locker, so she is couch-surfing while she works part time and studies at university. This woman is truly having a go. She was trying to stay in the workforce despite the fact that her miserable wage and the amount of petrol she uses to get to work mean that she is only $41 a week better off than she was on the full Newstart payment. She is studying to try to get a better-paying job, and she is desperately, desperately sad after years of poverty and struggling with her mental health. She is one of the thousands of Australians who are having a go and not getting a go. As she said, 'It's breaking me.' She cannot afford the medical assistance that she needs.
As the elected representatives of the Australian people, we have a fundamental responsibility for these people. I'm a senator for Tasmania, and I have the responsibility to do what I can on behalf of the 21,000 Tasmanians who are recipients of Newstart. Good government should provide social security support that allows people to live in health and dignity, with job generation and access to training that give Australians the opportunity of a secure job and a decent wage. Of course, our focus needs to be on jobs, but good government can do both. (Time expired)
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (18:11): Of course the rate of Newstart in this country is criminally low. It hasn't been raised in real terms for over a generation, and that is a generation of Australians who have been deliberately consigned to unnecessary misery and poverty by the neoliberal business model. Let's be really stark about this: there are fewer jobs available in Australia than there are people who need and want jobs. When you take that indisputable fact into account, and when you look at the punitive, deliberately demeaning welfare system that we have set up for unemployed people in this country, it becomes abundantly clear that the hurdles, hoops and barriers that this government puts in place for people just to be able to get income support, at a rate that is nowhere near enough for them to survive to a decent level, are based on ideology, not on a genuine desire to help people.
We often hear from the Liberals that the best form of welfare is a job. Well, no. The best form of welfare is actually a fair and decent welfare system, because the neoliberal business model has delivered us an economy where there are not enough jobs to go around, and that's true. Whether the Liberals like it or not, it's true based just on the unemployment rate. But, once you factor in the underemployment rate, the situation becomes even more dire. This is the result of deliberate policy settings by successive neoliberal governments of the LNP and ALP stripe in this country. It is simple supply and demand. If you have more jobs than there are people who want jobs, then wages are going to go up because companies and governments will be forced to offer increased wages to get people to fill those jobs, and that's not what the neoliberal model demands.
So let's not beat around the bush here. People who don't have jobs are not at fault. It's the policy settings of government that are at fault, and yet it is those people who don't have work—who want work but can't find it, because there aren't enough jobs in our economy and in our society for them—who get punished. It is those people who get treated in such a punitive and unfair way, and it is those people, the people on Newstart, who are condemned by the heartlessness of the neoliberal business model, by the heartlessness of the Liberal-National Party in this place, to live so far below the poverty line that they can barely see it on the horizon. It is a national disgrace, the unemployment rate. It is a national disgrace, the rate of Newstart, and it is based on the corporatist, neoliberal business model that treats corporate profits as more important than human beings. Raise Newstart now. Put in place fairer policy settings that create the jobs that Australians want, and do it now.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:16): Today I met with representatives of the Baptist faith. Yes, they are in the building, going around to talk with politicians and raise the fact that the impact of Newstart on families across the country is creating a real issue and that Newstart has not increased in so long. These members of the Baptist faith were senior denominational leaders, influential pastors and leaders from Baptist Care Australia and Baptist World Aid Australia. That is just one group—one group of thousands of Australians across the country who are very concerned in relation to where Newstart is today.
These are people of Christian faith who, by their own description, are representative of Australia's middle class in their values and circumstances. And that is what they reiterated many times in the conversation today. What they had come to see me about was clear and direct: they want to see the government raise the rate of Newstart. They're concerned because they see the people they deliver services to—that they minister to and share our community with—living in poverty, with all the issues that that brings with it. They are concerned at the kids who are born into poverty, grow up property and, in turn, raise their own families in poverty. They're concerned that people they know are having to make ends meet on as little as $245 a week. These Baptist leaders spoke with me about their concerns for the people who are at risk of falling through the cracks of our so-called social safety net.
Last month, TheGuardian Australia revealed that the number of people claiming Newstart had increased in about 10 per cent of areas across the country, despite a national improvement. Remote unemployment hotspots are among those that have been getting worse in the past year. In the Northern Territory, Palmerston—a satellite city just outside of Darwin; a wonderful place—recorded a more than 20 per cent increase in the number of people claiming Newstart or youth allowance, with the number jumping from 1,119 to 1,366 individuals, an increase of 247 for that area alone. It doesn't sound much, does it? But it certainly is a lot for the people who have to be on Newstart or youth allowance. In the outback Northern Territory communities of Katherine and the Barkly region, there was a spike of more than 16 per cent in the number of people on benefits, while the Darwin suburbs, Litchfield and East Arnhem Land all reported an increase of more than three per cent. In outback South Australia, which includes the remote Indigenous communities of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, more than 2,000 people are claiming Newstart or youth allowance, with the number up about five per cent year-on-year. These are people who are already labouring under the Community Development Program, or CDP, earning just $11 an hour.
We heard evidence during the Senate inquiry and during estimates about the effect this is having on communities and people. People in remote communities are already familiar with the consequences of being penalised by having their benefits taken away. We heard about the consequences of taking money away from mums and dads trying their best to make ends meet. The government's own report into CDP found that social problems had increased since the introduction of the program, including an increase in break-and-enters to steal food, predominantly by children and young people. It found an increase in domestic and family violence and an increase in financial coercion and family fighting. It also found an increase in mental health problems, feelings of shame, depression, sleep deprivation and hunger. It said the CDP had the opposite of its intended effect—to get people off welfare or 'sit-down money'. The report stated:
… there was no evidence from the research in this evaluation to suggest that penalties are an effective way to generate engagement …
Yet this government continues to take the approach that people on benefits somehow deserve to be penalised. It talks about jobs. Well, where are they in our remote communities?
The previous minister made big promises about the jobs component of CDP. I spoke earlier in the Senate today and said that there are around 33,000 people on CDP. The previous Minister for Indigenous Affairs said there would be 6,000 jobs for those 33,000. Six thousand subsidised jobs were supposed to commence in February this year. That very quietly was downgraded to 1,000 jobs and now—wait for it!—the government has very quietly put out a package of just 100 subsidised CDP jobs. That's 100, down from 6,000—all quietly brought down, with no accountability and certainly no certainty for those 6,000 people, of the 33,000 people, who were waiting and hoping and for those organisations that believed this government at least on that plan to provide 6,000 subsidised jobs. From 6,000 to 100 remote area jobs is quite a reduction in the employment opportunities that were meant to come.
The government keeps repeating a mantra of 'welfare to work', but they have very quietly conceded the difficulty with trying to secure jobs in the welfare system they are entrenching in remote communities. The approach of imposing penalties, rules and regulations from above and afar is stifling economic opportunity. It's certainly discouraging entrepreneurship and any hope of enterprise. There are practical challenges such as needing to travel to buy groceries and attend medical appointments, as these services are either too expensive or simply not available in these communities. There are significant extra expenses faced by people living in remote and regional Australia. Then there's the impact of poor road infrastructure on vehicles.
As the Baptist leaders told me today, the current Newstart rate is often forcing families to go hungry, especially in regional and remote areas of Australia. Families are hard-pressed to have enough money to spend on healthy food. Some community stores have reported a decline in the sales of fresh fruit and vegies, already sold at high prices because of freight and other costs. The NT government's latest market basket survey shows that the average price for a basket of healthy food in a remote Northern Territory store was $319 more than in a major NT supermarket. That's a gap of 60 per cent in healthy food costs between remote stores and big supermarkets in the major centres. This is despite major efforts in recent years to improve access to affordable food in remote areas through licensing schemes and improved store infrastructure. Baptist Care NT, in the Territory, work with Foodbank NT to provide direct food support to struggling families and individuals. They told me today that they don't come close to meeting the needs in Darwin, let alone in the regional areas of the Northern Territory.
We know that the inadequacy of Newstart is not simply a welfare issue. It is not simply an economic issue. It is also a health and wellbeing issue. Newstart recipients are six times more likely to face poor health outcomes. They are more likely to suffer from multiple conditions. They are more likely to suffer from mental ill health. They are more likely to be hospitalised. Poor health is a barrier to work, and we all know this. There are many additional social costs involved with entrenched disadvantage, and those costs are alleviated as the cycle of disadvantage is broken. Newstart is inadequate. People are struggling to afford the basics and the essentials, and they're struggling to meet their medical and healthcare costs.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:26): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to declare that One Nation supports increasing the Newstart allowance. Secondly, we do not support the idea that the low rate of Newstart is necessarily making people sick. What it is doing is making it hard for people to get a job, because it is hard for them to stay in touch and present to a job-ready standard. It isolates people, because people cannot afford to maintain social networks.
The third aspect of this matter of urgency is that we agree with the need to secure employment, because employment develops responsibility and the ability to pay for others on welfare. Work is the best form of support, because people have a need to contribute and belong beyond the monetary benefits. Yet what we see in rural areas, regional areas, provincial cities and some capital cities is job shedding. Productive people and meaningful jobs pay the welfare, as I've said, and Australia has led the way in sensible support and care because of its value of mateship. The problem is government. Government is not the solution; it is the problem. Let's look at the basics—and what a mess we see. The cost of living and energy prices are out of control. Tax—what a mess, destroying jobs. And we see economic mismanagement.
Secondly, on security, we see immigration destroying jobs, taking jobs, stealing jobs and decreasing wages in jobs. We see health being affected by the shortage of hospital beds or people staying in hospital less. We see infrastructure which is not being developed. That is the productive capacity for the future of our country. That's the best way to get people off Newstart.
Senator Rennick, in a fabulous speech last night, showed us the way. Jobs are not created; they are enabled. Government needs to set the environment right for employers. (Time expired)
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (18:28): We've had this debate quite a few times now in this chamber, and the talking points don't seem to change. The Liberals get up and say the best form of welfare is a job. Labor gets up and says, 'Yes, we should raise Newstart,' forgetting that it went to the election with a policy of simply reviewing it. What stays within this space is a kind of strange pantomime that we see, as each side trades talking points with each other. Meanwhile, out there, beyond the walls of this place, people are hurting—particularly disabled people, who have, since 2012, when the Labor Party amended the impairment tables in relation to the disability support pension, been driven onto the Newstart payment in droves and have sat there, below the poverty line, struggling to get by.
The reality is that there should be no shame in requiring income support in this country. God knows, the wealthy and the powerful and the privileged are quick enough to come for what they believe is theirs at every opportunity. I'll take this moment to remind folks who during this debate have expressed concerns about the cost of income support to the budget bottom line that we just spent $144 billion, over the next decade, on tax cuts with no evidential basis as to a stimulatory effect upon the economy. Meanwhile, we've got something like Newstart increases on the table, where even Deloitte Access Economics—hardly a progressive think tank—agrees that it'll increase the budget bottom line by $4 billion and create 12,000 jobs. The time is now.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:35]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Regulations and Ordinances Committee
Delegated Legislation Monitor
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:38): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor 5 of 2019.
Human Rights Committee
Report
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:39): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the fourth report of 2019, Human rights scrutiny report. I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Scrutiny Report 4 of 2019.
This report sets out the committee's consideration of 22 bills introduced into the Parliament, or restored to the notice paper, between 29 July and 1 August 2019, and 297 legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 5 June and 1 August 2019. The committee is seeking further information in relation to one bill and has also made comments, or reiterated its previous comments, in relation to seven bills and one legislative instrument.
As Senators would be aware, the committee is a technical scrutiny committee which examines and reports to the Parliament on the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under the seven core international human rights treaties ratified by Australia. This is in accordance with its legislative mandate under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act2011.
The committee's report provides Parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation, rather than an assessment of the broader policy involved. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports and may have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation.
The committee's purpose is to enhance understanding of, and respect for, human rights in Australia and to ensure appropriate consideration of human rights issues in legislative and policy development.
The committee seeks to achieve these outcomes through constructive engagement with proponents of legislation. The reports are intended to provide clear assessments of human rights issues that are accessible to Parliamentarians and to the public more broadly.
In its relatively brief existence, the committee has established a generally non-partisan and consensus based approach to its work, and this is an appropriate foundation by which to fulfil the committee's mandate.
As part of its role, the committee seeks to explore questions of human rights compatibility through dialogue with relevant ministers and officials. To this end, in this report the committee is seeking further information in relation to the Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Bill 2019. In particular, the committee is seeking advice as to whether the repeal of the medical transfer provisions will restrict access to healthcare for those held in regional processing centres and whether removing persons currently in Australia back to regional processing countries complies with Australia's international human rights obligations.
The committee has also welcomed changes made to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers) Bill 2019. In 2018 the committee raised concerns in relation to a similar bill which provided a broad basis for the use of move-on powers at major airports. In response, this bill provides that the powers cannot be used in relation to people exercising their right to lawfully engage in advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. The committee welcomes these changes, which adequately address its previous concerns, and has recommended that the use of such powers be monitored to ensure human rights are protected in practice.
Finally, the committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019, in response to a number of human rights concerns raised by submitters. I note that the disallowance procedure is the primary mechanism by which the Parliament may exercise control over delegated legislation. As the committee has not yet finalised its inquiry into the instrument and as the disallowance period ends shortly, the committee has resolved to place protective notices of motion to disallow this instrument, to extend the disallowance period by a further 15 sitting days. This will protect parliamentary control over the instrument pending completion of the committee's inquiry.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 4 of 2019 to the Senate.
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Report
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:39): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present a report of the committee on the review of the listing and re-listing of six organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Motion to take note of document no. 3 moved by Senator McCarthy. Consideration to resume on Thursday at general business.
PETITIONS
Centrelink
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:40): by leave—I table a petitioning document relating to restoring Centrelink services to the Huon Valley.
COMMITTEES
Scrutiny of Bills Committee
Scrutiny Digest
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:41): by leave—On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 5 of 2019 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ) (18:41): The President has received letters nominating senators to be members of the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:41): by leave—I move:
That senators be appointed to the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology, as follows:
Senators Bragg, McDonald and Scarr
Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Brockman, Chandler, Davey, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Hughes, McGrath, McMahon, O’Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Dean Smith, Stoker and Van.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:42): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:43): 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—
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (ENDING GRANDFATHERED CONFLICTED REMUNERATION) BILL 2019
On 4 February 2019, the Government released its response to the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
We have committed to take action on all 76 recommendations of the Final Report and, in a number of important areas, we will go further.
Since the release of the Final Report of the Royal Commission, the Government has:
instigated and responded to the APRA Capability Review;
expanded the remit of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to require it to establish a new historical redress scheme to consider eligible financial complaints dating back to 1 January 2008;
amended legislation to extend ASIC's product intervention power to, and impose design and distribution obligations on, all financial and credit products within ASIC's regulatory responsibility;
initiated work with the states and territories towards establishing a national farm debt mediation scheme;
pass legislation banning the inducement of employers by superannuation trustees and introduced civil penalties on superannuation trustees and directors for breaching the law; and
released consultation papers on the removal of the exemption for insurance claims handling, the enforceability of financial services industry codes, the merits of universal terms for MySuper products, and superannuation binding death benefit nominations for Indigenous people.
Through this Bill the Government takes another important step in implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission by enacting legislation that will end the payment of grandfathered conflicted remuneration to financial advisers.
While conflicted remuneration to financial advisers has been banned since 2013, remuneration arrangements that had been entered into before this date were not subject to the ban. This allowed financial advisers to continue to receive conflicted remuneration under these arrangements.
However, grandfathered conflicted remuneration can entrench customers in older, poorly performing products. This is because financial advisers may be unwilling to switch customers into newer, better products if it means the adviser will lose their entitlement to the grandfathered conflicted remuneration.
The Productivity Commission, in its report: Superannuation: Assessing Efficiency and Competitiveness released earlier this year, indicated:
" Members of 11 retail funds identified in data from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry are estimated to have paid in excess of $400 million in grandfathered trailing adviser commissions in 2017. "
The continued payment of these commissions is eroding the superannuation savings of Australians.
Commissioner Hayne put it very succinctly in the Royal Commission's Final Report saying:
" There can be, and is, no justification for maintaining the grandfathering provisions. "
This Bill implements this recommendation of the Royal Commission to end grandfathered conflicted remuneration.
Consumers will be the major beneficiaries from this reform. The Government's actions will mean they will receive higher quality advice and stop paying higher fees to fund grandfathered conflicted remuneration.
It is also important to point out that the Government's actions go even further than the Royal Commission recommendation because we will also require grandfathered benefits to be passed through to retail clients, where these commissions remain payable in contracts after 1 January 2021.
Otherwise, it will be the financial product manufacturers, not customers, who will benefit from no longer having to pay grandfathered conflicted remuneration to financial advisers.
As a result, the Bill includes a power for regulations to be made that will require the pass through of grandfathered conflicted remuneration to clients.
Specifying these requirements in regulations is the most appropriate approach as it provides the ability to make more detailed rules on how benefits must be passed through and also provides for flexibility to respond to changing industry circumstances in a more timely manner.
The Government recognizes that the industry will need time to implement and adjust to the abolition of grandfathering. In response, the Bill provides industry until 1 January 2021 to end all conflicted remuneration, facilitating a smooth transition to the end of grandfathering.
However, where industry can move earlier than 1 January 2021, the Government expects firms to do so, and to do it in a way that results in the benefits being passed through to consumers.
To ensure the industry acts swiftly to end grandfathered arrangements and passes through the benefits to clients, the Government has issued a direction to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to monitor and report on industry actions in the period from 1 July 2019 to 1 January 2021.
The Government's action through this Bill to end grandfathering is an important part of the actions we have taken since releasing our response to the Royal Commission.
Restoring trust in Australia's financial sector is part of our plan for a stronger economy.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019
Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2019
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:44): These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. 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 CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:45): 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—
AGED CARE AMENDMENT (MOVEMENT OF PROVISIONALLY ALLOCATED PLACES) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
Today I am introducing the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019.
This Bill will amend the AgedCareAct 1997 to allow the movement of provisionally allocated residential care places from one determined Aged Care Planning Region (region) to another.
The Liberal National Government (the Government) is committed to ensuring all older Australians have access to high quality aged care and services when they need it. Integral to this is supporting approved providers to make residential aged care places ready for use as quickly as possible.
The Government has overarching responsibility for delivery of aged care services across the country, as part of an end-to-end system covering both residential and in-home aged care. A key policy objective for the Government is to ensure that residential aged care is available to those older Australians who require it as quickly as possible, and appropriately allocated to regions to address local needs.
Through a competitive process, residential aged care places are provisionally allocated to approved providers by the Secretary of the Department of Health (the department) or a delegate in a region that has a demonstrated need for these services.
Constructing aged care homes is a difficult, time consuming and expensive exercise. It takes on average 4.3 years for providers to acquire land, obtain planning approval and construct an aged care home.
Following an allocation of places, providers can often have difficulties locating suitable land and navigating local government planning processes. It is not uncommon for suitable land to be located just outside a planning region, or for local councils to decide for example that a planned 120 bed aged care home should only be 100 beds.
In such circumstances, operationalising places in the current region may not always be feasible, but by moving them to another region the approved provider can often make them available to older Australians more quickly. This is not, however, permissible under the current legislation.
The amendments within this Bill seek to amend the legislation to allow provisionally allocated residential aged care places to be moved from one region to another, where a provider can demonstrate that the movement is in the interests of aged care consumers and there is a clear need for places in the new region.
This Bill also makes it clear that in considering any such applications, the department will also consider the needs of the region from which it is proposed to transfer the provisionally allocated places. In particular, the department will ensure that this does not become a mechanism for moving residential aged care places out of regional areas of high need to metropolitan areas with a lower need.
This change is in the best interests of all older Australians and the broader community. It will remove a potential barrier to the community in accessing residential aged care, thereby aligning with the Government's commitment to ensuring delivery of high quality aged care and services when and where they are needed.
This Bill was introduced into the previous Parliament on 13 February 2019. Whilst it passed the House of Representatives, the Bill lapsed as it was not debated in the Senate prior to the election being called.
FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXTEND FAMILY ASSISTANCE TO ABSTUDY SECONDARY SCHOOL BOARDING STUDENTS AGED 16 AND OVER) BILL 2019
This Bill is being introduced to implement a measure announced as part of the 2019-20 Budget. In the Budget, the Government announced that it would extend Family Tax Benefit to the families of ABSTUDY students who board away from home to attend secondary school. Currently, Family Tax Benefit stops when an ABSTUDY student turns 16. Changes introduced by this Bill will support families of ABSTUDY boarding students by continuing their eligibility to receive Family Tax Benefit until their child completes secondary school. This will remove the existing perverse incentive for Indigenous boarding students to drop out of school at age 16. It will support more Indigenous students to complete year 12 and is consistent with the Government's focus on closing the gap in educational attainment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
Under current arrangements, once an ABSTUDY boarding student turns 16 they no longer receive Family Tax Benefit. This creates a perverse incentive for families to retain Family Tax Benefit by removing their child from boarding school. This is a policy anomaly that is not aligned with supporting Indigenous students completing year 12.
Many remote communities have no local secondary school, so boarding is frequently the only option for children to go to secondary school. However, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students are disproportionately dropping out of boarding education around the age of 16. Data from the Department of Human Services (Services Australia) shows that the number of ABSTUDY boarding students drops by approximately 60 per cent between the ages of 15 and 17.
The Prime Minister's 2019 Closing the Gap address to Parliament emphasised that for Indigenous students in remote and very remote areas, access to quality education can be a lifeline to future prosperity and wellbeing. This statement echoed the views of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs in its 2017 report on Indigenous education, which stressed the importance of education but found room for improvement in the support of Indigenous boarding students.
Amendments introduced by this Bill, will build on the 2018‑19 Budget measure "50 Years of ABSTUDY", which improved assistance for Indigenous secondary students who need to study away from home, including better, fairer and more flexible travel provisions and the portability of ABSTUDY benefits if students change schools. This Bill will extend Family Tax Benefit to eligible secondary students aged 16 years and over who receive ABSTUDY assistance to study away from home. These changes will commence on 1 January 2020 subject to the timing of the passage of this Bill.
Extending Family Tax Benefit to ABSTUDY boarding students is consistent with broader Family Tax Benefit rules. It also aligns with recommendations from the 2014 Forrest Review 'Creating Parity'. The Forrest Review recommended that Indigenous families with children at boarding school have access to Family Tax Benefit payments until students finish year 12 in recognition of the costs parents incur for their children.
Currently, families of Indigenous boarding students aged under 16 are generally eligible for both ABSTUDY and Family Tax Benefit. ABSTUDY for these students is paid directly to the school and boarding provider to cover tuition and boarding costs, while Family Tax Benefit is paid to the family to help with the cost of raising children. Families rely on Family Tax Benefit to assist them with the ongoing costs of their children's daily incidentals while they are away at school, such as clothing, toiletries, medicines and pocket money as well as their essential living costs when they are at home during school holidays. Once the student turns 16, Family Assistance legislation precludes ABSTUDY students from receiving Family Tax Benefit, leaving families with no assistance for the cost of everyday essentials for their child.
The loss of Family Tax Benefit when a boarding student turns 16 is a significant drop in income support for families, which can be as high as $6,900 per year. This contributes to financial pressure for families at a critical stage in a young person's education. It can also create a disincentive for families to continue sending their child away to school and attain a year 12 qualification. This puts the student's performance and completion of secondary school at risk. If they drop out of school early, these young people are in a much weaker position to transition to work in adulthood.
Increased financial hardship for families is not conducive to school completion and there is a link between financial disadvantage and lower school retention rates. Department of Human Services administrative data shows that ABSTUDY students from low-income families are 15 per cent less likely to stay in boarding and complete their schooling.
ABSTUDY boarding students are more likely to drop out of school around the ages of 16 and 17 (between years 10 and 11). After establishing themselves at secondary school, between years 7 and 10 approximately 10 per cent of ABSTUDY boarding students drop out each year. This increases to around 50 per cent between years 10 and 11 and again between years 11 and 12. Overall this represents a drop out rate of approximately 60 per cent between the ages of 15 and 17.
Modelling using the Priority Investment Approach shows ABSTUDY students who stay in boarding for their senior schooling are less likely to need income support in the future. On average, within five years of leaving school, Indigenous young people who study year 11 as boarding students are projected to have income support costs that are 38 per cent lower than those of their peers who leave school early. This modelling shows that these students do better in the long term compared with Indigenous young people who drop out of school early. For example, ten years after leaving school, Indigenous young people who drop out early are:
one third more likely to be on an unemployment payment, and
25 per cent more likely to be a young mother on income support.
The Priority Investment Approach modelling suggests that an increase in support for young Indigenous Australians to complete year 12 would lead to longer-term benefits for income support outlays.
Changes introduced by this Bill will mean that from 1 January 2020, families of Indigenous boarding students will stay in the Family Tax Benefit system until their child reaches the end of secondary school. Eligible families of boarding students aged 16 years and over can receive both ABSTUDY for school and boarding fees, and Family Tax Benefit to assist them with the ongoing costs of raising the child. These improved payment arrangements will better reflect the needs of remote Indigenous families with children studying away from home.
The families of more than 2,000 Indigenous secondary students will benefit from these changes. On average, these families would receive an additional $5,911 per year.
Through these changes the Government is delivering an additional $36.4 million in support over the next four years. This investment will increase the proportion of Indigenous students who complete year 12 – improving their work prospects and lifetime wellbeing, and reversing the potential costs to the community that come with long-term unemployment and welfare dependency.
This investment is an addition to the investment of $38.1 million over five years, contained in the 2018-19 Budget measure "50 Years of ABSTUDY".
By providing additional assistance to Indigenous families without access to local secondary schools, changes brought about by this Bill will help close the gap and address recommendations from the Forrest Review and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs' report on Indigenous education.
In summary, this Bill allows for the implementation of measures that will extend Family Tax Benefit to the families of ABSTUDY students who need to board away from home to attend secondary school.
MIGRATION AMENDMENT (STREAMLINING VISA PROCESSING) BILL 2019
Introduction
The Department's biometric program for the provision of personal identifiers has been implemented in phases. Commencing in 2006 with the collection of facial images and fingerprints of illegal foreign fishers, it was extended in 2010 with the addition of facial images and fingerprints for visa applicants in high risk locations, and expanded to non-citizens refused entry at Australia's international airports. Most recently, in 2015, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics) Act 2015 simplified and expanded the Department's personal identifier collection capability with a broad discretion to require personal identifiers for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 or regulations made under that Act.
The purposes of the Department of Home Affairs' biometric program include:
assisting in the identification of a person;
improving the procedures for determining visa applications;
enhancing the Department of Home Affairs' ability to identify non-citizens who have a criminal history or are of character concern;
assisting in identifying persons who may be a security concern;
combating identity fraud in immigration matters; and
facilitating genuine travellers more efficiently.
The collection of personal identifiers is essential to establishing the identity of non-citizens, as checks using personal identifiers are far more accurate than document-based checks of biographic details such as name and date of birth alone.
Intention of the Bill
The intention of these amendments is to enable the collection personal identifiers to be a prerequisite to making a valid visa application. If an applicant refuses to provide their personal identifiers then they cannot make a valid visa application and cannot be considered for the grant of a visa.
The measures provide a mechanism for the Minister to specify a group of visa applicants who must provide one or more personal identifiers (also specified) to have a valid application – that is, it will be a mandatory requirement. The groups of applicants would not include persons unable to provide certain personal identifiers, such as the collection of fingerprints from people with a permanent physical disability, resulting in the inability to collect fingerprints.
These amendments do not remove the discretion to require personal identifiers from visa applicants at any time after a visa application has been made. The Minister would continue to be able to require additional personal identifiers after lodgement of the visa application, where for example the identity of the visa applicant remains uncertain.
Protections
These amendments fully retain existing protections associated with the collection of personal identifiers in the Migration Act, such as those relating to privacy, humanity, and dignity. Nor do these changes expand who may be required to provide personal identifiers or what personal identifiers may be required. Rather, this amendment is about enabling the streamlining of the process by which personal identifiers are required and provided at the time of a person applying for a visa.
As per the current biometrics collection program, people who are incapable of providing a particular biometric will be exempt from the requirement.
For visa applicants who may need to travel quickly to Australia, for example due to a family emergency, it is not intended that the requirement to provide Personal Identifiers as an application validity requirement apply to short stay visas used in emergency situations.
Conclusion
It is important that identity checks are able to be done against personal identifier data to detect individuals of concern as soon as they make a visa application. Personal identifiers are far superior to checks undertaken using biographic details such as name and date of birth that are contained in identity documents.
Recent terrorism-related events both in Australia and overseas highlight the need for the Department of Home Affairs to know who is applying for a visa as soon as they make a visa application through the provision of personal identifiers. These amendments will enable enhanced scrutiny, improve the integrity of our visa programs, and reduce the risk of terrorism.
In conclusion, this Bill enhances the integrity of Australia's visa programs and protects Australians from persons who are a criminal threat or a risk to national security.
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS) BILL 2019
The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill (the Bill) amends the National Health Act1953 to support the ongoing administration of the PBS and will ensure ongoing patient access to vital medicines.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has been providing affordable access to medicines for Australians for over sixty years and is rightly respected and valued for the high quality, cost‑effective services it delivers.
The Morrison Government is deeply committed to the PBS and the Australian patients that benefit from this scheme. Our Government has a commitment to list all medicines on the PBS when recommended to do so by the medical experts. Since 2013 our Government has made approximately 2000 new or amended PBS listing at an investment of over $10.5 billion.
The delivery of medicines to patients once listed on the PBS is a collaborative effort and Australia is well supported by its broad network of community pharmacies and the broader medicines supply chain. This bill will support them to continue to support Australians in need.
This Bill proposes amendments which will support the PBS in two ways. Specifically, the changes will provide for application fees to be payable for applications by pharmacists to supply PBS medicines which was announced in the 2018-19 Budget; and enable PBS medicines to continue to be supplied at pharmacy premises following bankruptcy.
The first of the amendments provides for an application fee to be charged when pharmacists make an application to supply PBS medicines at pharmacy premises.
There is currently no fee and this amendment will ensure the operations of the pharmacy approval processes are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework.
The fee will apply to all applications to establish a new pharmacy, relocate an existing pharmacy or where the pharmacy changes ownership. Payment of the fee will be required at the time pharmacists submit their application.
The amount of the fee will be determined by the Minister for Health in a legislative instrument and will be calculated based on the regulatory activity involved in processing these types of applications.
The fees will be reviewed each year by the Department of Health and adjusted accordingly.
This Bill also includes measures that will allow PBS medicines to continue to be supplied to patients following the bankruptcy of an approved pharmacist, to ensure the community can continue to receive much needed medicines. This will be of particular benefit in rural and remote areas where access to alternative pharmacies may be limited. The approximate number of pharmacies affected by bankruptcy or external administration is 20 each year.
For many years, the arrangements following bankruptcy relied on the appointed administrator supplying PBS medicines at the pharmacy until approval was granted to another pharmacist, following the sale of the pharmacy business.
However, during the course of a Federal Court matter involving a bankrupt pharmacist, it was found that an approval of a pharmacist to supply PBS medicines was not proprietary in nature for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and therefore could not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy. Whilst the matter did not proceed to hearing, the result of an approval not being proprietary means that neither the approved pharmacist, nor the appointed administrator, is able to supply PBS medicines at a pharmacy affected by bankruptcy.
If the appointed administrator cannot take over supply, then access to PBS medicines from the pharmacy may be disrupted. Cessation or interruption of access to PBS medicines is of particular concern in regional or rural settings where there may be no or few other approved pharmacies nearby.
The amendments in the Bill address these issues. The Bill provides the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to grant permission to an appointed administrator to manage the supply of PBS medicines at pharmacy premises.
The new provisions will assist continuity of supply of PBS medicines at an affected pharmacy until such time that the pharmacy can be sold or transferred to another pharmacist.
The changes proposed in this Bill will improve the operation of the PBS and I am confident they will be welcomed by PBS users. I would like to acknowledge and thank key stakeholders for their input during consultation on the Bill.
In particular, the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacy Association, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.
The aim of this Government is to ensure that Australians have access through the PBS to affordable medicines when and where they need them. The changes proposed will ensure that access to PBS medicines will no longer be compromised when a pharmacy is affected by bankruptcy or external administration.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019
Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:46): 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 CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:47): 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—
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT (CHARGES) BILL 2019
The Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 gives effect to the annual charge cost recovery measure in the higher education sector, consistent with the Australian government charging framework.
This separate bill is required to provide for an annual charge to be applied on higher education providers, which is separate from education legislation.
The 2018-19 federal budget included an annual charge cost recovery measure affecting higher education providers, which is the subject of this bill.
The bill implements an annual charge on all higher education providers whose students are entitled to HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP assistance under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The annual charge will partially recover the costs incurred by the Commonwealth each year in administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs from higher education providers.
The bill does not set the amount of the annual charge, which will be prescribed by the regulations. It is anticipated the amount of the charge will depend in part on the size of the providers, determined by the number of enrolments per year.
The 2019-20 federal budget included a one year delay to the commencement of the annual charge. Therefore, the annual charge will commence from 1 January 2020, and higher education providers will receive their invoice for the annual charge for the 2020 calendar year in 2021, after reconciliation of higher education providers' HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP student enrolment data has occurred.
The annual charge measure announced in the 2018-19 federal budget will ensure consistency and fairness across the whole of the tertiary education sector, as a similar charging measure already operates in the vocational education and training sector. In this case, partially recovering the costs of the annual charge reduces the impact of the annual charge on all higher education providers.
The annual charge measure is consistent with the Australian government charging framework and links the cost of services to those who benefit from them. In this case the higher education providers will be required to meet the cost for the regulatory arrangements from revenues they raise from students. Currently these costs are borne by the general public. It also increases awareness with the higher education sector of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs.
Associated amendments will also be made to the Higher Education Support Act to reflect the annual charge measure, set out in the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019.
Subject to the passage of this bill and the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019, the annual charge measure is to commence from 1 January 2020 –although 2020 charges will not be issued until May 2021.
I commend the bill.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (COST RECOVERY) BILL 2019
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019 and the associated Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 give effect to cost recovery measures for the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, in the higher education sector. This is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework.
The 2018-19 federal budget includes HELP cost recovery measures (an annual charge and an application fee) affecting higher education providers, which are the subject of this bill.
Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to put in place an application fee on applicants seeking approval as higher education providers under the Act. The fee will be applied from 1 January 2020. The level of the application fee will be set in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, at an amount that will recover the government's full costs of administration and assessment of applications from prospective providers.
Part 2 of schedule 1 to the bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act to reflect the introduction of an annual charge on higher education providers under the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019.
The annual charge will partially recover from higher education providers the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs.
The amendments will require a higher education provider to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, as a condition of their continued approval under the Higher Education Support Act.
The amendments will also enable the Higher Education Provider Guidelines to set out the administrative detail of collection and recovery of the annual charge; for example, when assessment notices will be given to providers, whether there are penalties associated with late payment of the charge, and when and how extensions of time to pay the charge can be given.
The HELP cost recovery measures announced in 2018-19 federal budget will ensure consistency and fairness across the whole of the tertiary education sector, as similar charging measures already exist in the vocational education and training sector.
The HELP cost recovery measures are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework and link the cost of services to those who benefit from them.
In this case, the higher education providers will be required to meet the cost for the regulatory arrangements from revenues they raise from students.
Currently these costs are borne by the general public. It also raises awareness with the higher education sector of the costs incurred to the Commonwealth for administering HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs, and the costs of assessing applications from prospective FEE-HELP providers.
The HELP cost recovery measures are expected to provide a combined estimated saving of $11.7 million in fiscal balance terms over the 2019-20 to 2022-23 period for both charges. This is an amount that the general taxpayer will not have to bear.
The government consulted with the higher education sector on the annual charge and the application fee through the release of the draft Cost Recovery Implementation Statement in late 2018. Feedback received from this consultation process has helped to inform the development of the final cost recovery implementation statement.
It is anticipated that the final cost recovery implementation statement will be released to the higher education sector prior to the commencement of the HELP cost recovery measures on 1 January 2020.
The method of calculation of the annual charge will be settled and prescribed in regulations, and the application fee amount will be settled and prescribed in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, along with the administrative processes for collection and recovery of the annual charge.
Subject to the passage of this bill and the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019, the HELP cost recovery measures are to commence from 1 January 2020. However, higher education providers will not be issued an invoice for the annual charge for the 2020 calendar year until May 2021, after reconciliation of higher education providers' HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP student enrolment data has occurred.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:47): 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 CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:48): 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—
ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE (REGULATORY LEVIES) AMENDMENT BILL 2019
This Bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 as a consequence of related amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The amendments to the OPGGS Act will transfer regulatory oversight for offshore greenhouse gas storage well operations from the responsible Commonwealth Minister to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA.
NOPSEMA operates on a fully cost-recovered basis through levies and fees payable by the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage industries. This includes well-related levies imposed in relation to petroleum titles. To ensure NOPSEMA can also recover the cost of its oversight of well operations under greenhouse gas titles, this Bill will amend the Levies Act to extend the application of the well-related levies to greenhouse gas wells.
This Bill also amends the Levies Act as a consequence of amendments which commenced on 1 January 2016 made to well-related regulations under the OPGGS Act, or the Wells Regulations.
Prior to the amendments to the Wells Regulations, a new 'well operations management plan' was required to be submitted every five years. The amendments instead provided for a single plan to cover all stages of the life of a well, and required revision of the plan every five years. Currently, under the Levies Act, well activity levies are only imposed on applications for acceptance of a new plan. To ensure NOPSEMA continues to be fully cost-recovered, this Bill will amend the Levies Act to impose a well activity levy on submission of five-yearly revisions of plans.
The amendments to the Wells Regulations also removed the requirement for a titleholder to apply to NOPSEMA for approval to commence well activities. This Bill removes well activity levies that relate to those applications.
The Bill also makes technical amendments to the Levies Act, to future-proof specific references in provisions of the Levies Act to regulations made under the OPGGS Act. The amendments are equivalent in purpose and effect to the amendments made to the OPGGS Act by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.
Effective references to regulations are critical to the operation of a number of provisions of the Levies Act, including provisions which impose levies to fund the operations of NOPSEMA on a cost recovery basis.
I commend this Bill to the Chamber.
ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019
This Bill contains important measures making amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.
The Bill will transfer regulatory oversight for offshore greenhouse gas storage environmental management and well operations from the responsible Commonwealth Minister to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA. Currently, NOPSEMA is the regulator for offshore petroleum environmental management and well operations.
The reason for the division of petroleum and greenhouse gas responsibilities is largely historical. NOPSEMA did not have any environmental management functions in 2008 when the greenhouse gas regulatory provisions were introduced into the Act. With the potential for an increase in greenhouse gas storage activities in future, there is a renewed focus on the adequacy of regulatory arrangements.
NOPSEMA has developed expertise in the regulation of offshore environmental management and well operations through its responsibility for regulation of offshore petroleum activities. The Australian Government proposes to transfer regulatory oversight for offshore greenhouse gas storage environmental management and well operations from the Minister to NOPSEMA. This will ensure we have an experienced and independent regulator for offshore greenhouse gas operations. The proposal will be effected through a suite of amendments.
The Minister will retain responsibility for major resource related decisions concerning the granting of greenhouse gas titles, the imposition of title conditions and the cancellation of titles, as well as core decisions about resource management and resource security.
The amendments in this Bill will strengthen and clarify the powers of NOPSEMA inspectors to determine whether regulated entities are compliant with their obligations under the Act and associated regulations.
The amendments will expand and clarify the categories of premises that inspectors may enter, without a warrant, to monitor compliance with environmental and occupational health and safety obligations. This will include premises of a body corporate that is related to a titleholder, such as a parent company which may make decisions about operations carried out under the title. It will also include the premises of titleholders' contractors, including entities who have agreed to provide response equipment in the event of an oil spill.
The amendments in this Bill will also enable inspectors to undertake inspections without a warrant to monitor compliance by titleholders with well integrity-related obligations under the Act and regulations. These powers will be equivalent to existing powers that inspectors may exercise to conduct environmental or OHS inspections.
In the context of a high-hazard industry, it is particularly important that the regulator has sufficient powers to ensure regulatory obligations are being complied with. Non-compliance may increase risks to health or safety or to the environment, with potentially serious consequences. The requirement to obtain a warrant may impede NOPSEMA's ability to conduct inspections. This is due to the difficulty in accessing offshore facilities and changes to titleholders' operational decisions on the timing of well activities. The requirement to obtain a warrant may also impede NOPSEMA's ability to respond quickly in an emergency.
Inspectors will still be required to obtain a warrant before exercising any powers to search for or gather evidence of contraventions of provisions.
The Bill further amends the Act to introduce enforceable undertakings. This will enable the Minister, the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator and the CEO of NOPSEMA to accept and enforce undertakings in relation to compliance with provisions of the Act and regulations. The introduction of enforceable undertakings form part of a graduated enforcement framework.
Although regulators currently have access to a range of enforcement tools, enforceable undertakings offer a unique benefit. Existing tools can require a duty holder to cease an activity or reach a minimum standard of compliance. Enforceable undertakings can go beyond these enforcement tools to effect meaningful changes to overall compliance culture.
Enforceable undertakings allow the regulator to secure more timely and cost‑effective outcomes than a prosecution. For example, a prosecution may take months or years to achieve a result, whereas an enforceable undertaking can require the duty holder to take steps to comply as soon as the undertaking has been accepted by the regulator. Enforceable undertakings remove the need for the regulator to pay the potentially sizeable costs associated with prosecutions. Undertakings also enable the regulator to tailor the enforcement response, taking specific titleholder and broader industry considerations into account.
In accordance with a graduated enforcement framework, regulators will determine if it is appropriate to accept an undertaking given by a person, taking into account a range of factors. These factors include the circumstances in which the undertaking is given, and the compliance history of the person giving the undertaking. The Bill includes specific circumstances in which the regulator must not accept an undertaking in response to an alleged contravention of an OHS provision of the Act or regulations. For example, the regulator must not accept an undertaking if an alleged contravention contributed to the death of another person, or if the alleged contravention involved recklessness. These express limitations are considered to be appropriate in the context of a high-hazard industry.
The Bill was previously introduced into Parliament on 28 March 2018, but lapsed when Parliament was prorogued for the 2019 Federal election. On 28 June 2018, the Senate referred the provisions of the Bill to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. In its report, the Committee recommended that a two year review period for enforceable undertakings be inserted into the Bill to ascertain if enforceable undertakings are the most suitable way of ensuring compliance with the Act.
The Bill has not been amended to provide a two year review period specifically to consider the effectiveness of enforceable undertakings. However, the Government will ensure that this matter is considered within a suitable period after the commencement of the relevant provisions of this Bill.
The Bill also amends the Act to retrospectively designate particular areas as 'frontier areas' for the purposes of the Designated Frontier Area tax incentive, to correct a recently discovered historical administrative oversight.
The DFA tax incentive was designed to encourage petroleum exploration in Australia's remote offshore areas. It was active between 2004 and 2009. Under the scheme, the Resources Minister could designate up to 20 per cent of each year's offshore petroleum acreage release areas as 'frontier areas'. Where a permit was awarded over an area designated as a frontier area, the registered holder or holders of the permit could claim up to 150 per cent of exploration expenditure as a deduction for the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, or PRRT.
Under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987, the Resources Minister was required to formally designate frontier areas in writing. Due to an administrative oversight, this requirement was not met for the 2005 acreage release. As a result, four petroleum exploration permits were awarded over areas promoted in 2005 as frontier areas which were not validly designated.
This Bill will amend the Act to retrospectively designate these areas as frontier areas. This will remove any doubt that the relevant titleholders are entitled to the uplifted PRRT deductions. No persons will be disadvantaged by retrospective application.
Finally, the Bill makes technical amendments to the Act to future-proof specific references in provisions of the Act to regulations made under the Act.
There are several sets of regulations made under the Act dealing with separate matters, such as safety, environmental management, and resource management. Each of the regulations are scheduled to sunset over the next few years. There is a risk that current references in the Act to the specific titles of regulations will become ineffective when the regulations sunset and are remade with a new title. The amendments made by this Bill are necessary to ensure that the Act does not need to be amended each time regulations under the Act sunset and are remade, with associated risks to the ongoing effective operation of the Act.
Effective references to regulations are critical to the operation of a number of provisions of the Act, including provisions which set out regulations subject to monitoring and investigation under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, and polluter pays and financial assurance obligations.
The amendments will enable the titles of the regulations, or provisions of regulations, relevant to each affected provision of the Act to be prescribed by regulation. When the title of a set of regulations changes as a result of remaking those regulations, the reference can be updated by regulatory amendment.
Overall, this Bill underscores this Government's ongoing commitment to the maintenance and continuous improvement of a strong and effective regulatory framework for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage. Further, it ensures the framework's currency and alignment with international best practice.
I commend this Bill to the Chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:48): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:49): 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 Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill is designed to protect the over $2 billion dollars held for redundancy pay, sick leave and other benefits for workers in some industries. The Bill is aimed at ensuring this money is managed responsibly, transparently and in the interests of workers.
Despite their size, these funds are currently not required to comply with the basic rules of governance that usually apply to such schemes. The Cole Royal Commission in 2003 said the 'repercussions would be enormous should any of these funds diminish or collapse for reasons of mismanagement, misappropriation or abuse.' This concern was repeated by Commissioner Heydon in 2015.
Most of these funds are joint ventures of unions and employer groups, and two royal commissions have warned about clear conflicts of interest. The Heydon Royal Commission and, the Cole Royal Commission before that, found that these funds have funnelled millions of dollars back to the unions and employer groups represented on their boards.
These include payments for services, administration and directors fees, and commissions, however there are also numerous examples of funds simply being transferred to the unions and employer associations represented on these funds' boards. As recently as 2017, one fund transferred over $30 million to its sponsoring union and employer association.
Commissioner Heydon recommended that the funds be properly regulated and required to meet basic governance, financial reporting and disclosure standards. In fact, he said there was a 'compelling case' for reform.
With the passing of this Bill, workers' money held by these funds will need to be responsibly invested and transparently managed by properly trained people. The funds will need to have at least one independent voting director on their boards. They will have to be run by people of good fame and character. They will have to be managed at arm's length. They will be required to treat union members the same as non-members. And they will be required to be open with workers, employers and the regulator about how they spend fund money.
These are basic standards that should apply to people who manage other people's money.
The Registered Organisations Commission will register and monitor the funds and ensure they comply with the law and manage workers' money responsibly.
The funds will still be able to spend money on training and welfare services for workers, such as crisis counselling or health checks. But these payments and donations must be properly approved and disclosed and meet other basic conditions designed to avoid conflicts of interest. These protections are perfectly reasonable, given the funds are spending workers' money.
If workers do not like how a fund manages their money, they will now be able to choose another fund. Organisations will not be able to lock a worker into a fund that benefits the organisation and misspends the worker's money.
In response to concerns from the funds, the Government has amended the Bill to delay the commencement of the provisions that affect them, to give them sufficient time to adjust to the new scheme.
In addition to regulating worker entitlement funds, this Bill makes a number of other crucial changes to the regulation of registered organisations that were recommended by the Heydon Royal Commission. In total, the bill implements 10 recommendations of the Royal Commission aimed at stopping corruption, coercion and financial mismanagement in registered trade unions and employer groups.
Schedule 1 of the Bill introduces a civil penalty for organisations that do not have policies about financial expenditure, and provides that the Registered Organisations Commission can issue model policies that organisations can choose to adopt. To ensure keeping these policies is not a burden, particularly on small organisations with limited resources, the Government has amended the Bill so that organisations will not need to lodge these policies with the regulator.
Schedule 3 of the Bill concerns the 'election funds' that are set up to fund the campaigns of people running for office in a union or employer group. The Bill provides that enterprise agreements and employment contracts cannot include terms that require people to contribute to these funds. These contributions should be truly voluntary, not a condition of working for a union or employer group.
Schedule 4 of the Bill prohibits people coercing employers to contribute to particular superannuation funds, welfare funds and other worker benefit funds. The Royal Commission heard cases of union officials placing extraordinary pressure on employers to use particular funds, basically because the union stood to gain from the arrangement. There is no place for this sort of bullying and coercion in the workplace.
Finally, Schedule 5 of the Bill requires unions and employer groups to disclose any financial benefit they will receive from promoting or arranging an insurance product, welfare fund or other such arrangement. The Royal Commission found that some unions receive very substantial commissions for promoting particular insurance products, and that these commissions were not disclosed properly, if at all, to employers and workers. Requiring organisations to disclose these benefits will help bring to light any conflicts of interest that might arise.
In short, this Bill is about transparency, good governance, and the proper use of worker benefits. It is about exposing conflicts of interest and ensuring that employee benefits are protected and that workers get a good deal from the arrangements other people negotiate for them.
Debate adjourned.
Health Insurance Amendment (Bonded Medical Programs Reform) Bill 2019
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.
COMMITTEES
Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme
Appointment
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ) (18:50): A message has been received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate that the House has agreed to the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme with amendments and seeking the concurrence of the Senate with those amendments.
The House of Representatives message read as follows—
(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 11 members—5 senators, and 6 members of the House of Representatives, as follows:
(a) 4 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) 2 senators 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 Government member or senator.
(9) That the committee elect as deputy chair an Opposition, minor party or independent member or senator.
(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 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-Government member of either House.
(12) 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.
(13) That the committee:
(a) 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; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only.
(14) That 2 members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-Government member of either House.
(15) 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.
(16) 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.
(17) 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.
(18) 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.
(19) 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.
(20) 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.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:50): I seek leave to have the message considered immediately.
Leave granted.
Senator CANAVAN: I move:
That the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Representatives.
Question agreed to.
Northern Australia Committee
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Ms Wells to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia in place of Mr Fitzgibbon.
BILLS
Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
Leave out all words after "that", insert:
"(1) The bill be withdrawn and redrafted to deal with the numerous and significant unintended consequences that have been outlined in the Labor Senators' additional comments to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report on this bill.
(2) The redrafted bill, on introduction, be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report."
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:51): I just inform the Senate that I plan to speak quite briefly on this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. Unlike, it seems, many of those opposite and on the crossbench, I am keen to see this bill get to a vote as soon as possible. Obviously it now looks unlikely that it's going to be this evening, but I'm certainly not going to be the one to hold it up, even though I would like to make a contribution. So I will keep it fairly brief.
In listening to the contributions of others in this place, there is one thing that stands out for me. When we hear words thrown around like this being about 'quashing dissent', 'cracking down on legitimate protest' and 'cracking down on civil disobedience' and that it's 'instilling fear in the hearts of animal activists everywhere', I think the people of Australia, particularly those of rural and regional Australia and those who work in agricultural industries, would just have to laugh at those sorts of comments. There is fear in the community. It is fear of the interference of radical animal activists in people's lives and people's businesses. Unlike, I suspect, the vast majority of those opposite and on the crossbench, I have actually spoken to farmers who have been directly affected by the matter that this legislation seeks to address. I've spoken to farmers whose farms have been listed on the Aussie Farms website in particular but also on other websites. This bill seeks to create an offence of inciting another person to trespass on agricultural land through the use of a carriage service—in this case, most obviously, the internet—to distribute material, and it seeks to create a second, more serious offence of incitement to cause property damage on agricultural land.
As I say, I have spoken to farmers who have been affected by these kinds of websites, who have been listed, and they are genuinely worried. They are worried about the impact on their lives, on their families and on their businesses. They often live in relatively remote areas, and they often live in very, very small communities—often just one family on a farm by themselves. In this day and age, unfortunately, we have an ageing population in our rural and regional areas. That means that it could be a relatively elderly husband and wife on a property a long way from anywhere—a long way from any support services, a long way from the police—and they are genuinely worried about what these radical animal activists will do.
We've seen the impacts. Those opposite and those on the crossbench said, 'Oh, well, this is covered by state trespass laws,' but the sheer and manifest inadequacy of those state trespass laws is demonstrated nowhere more clearly than in the case of the Gippy Goat Cafe. The penalties that were imposed on those who were found guilty—yes, they were found guilty!—were a fine of $1 each for breaching biosecurity and $250, which they were given six months to pay, to compensate for the theft of around $2,000 worth of livestock. At an inquiry into that, the owners of that now-closed cafe talked about what happened at the hearing into that particular case. Mr Gommans stated:
At the sentencing, the magistrate said [to the activists] 'no one likes animal cruelty, keep doing what you are doing but don't get caught,' …
This was Mr Gommans evidence to an inquiry into this matter. That to me is an absolutely sickening approach to take, and the penalties that were applied there were absolutely, manifestly inadequate.
People do care about this issue. They do care about protecting people who work in agricultural enterprises, who work in farms and who work in related industries. In fact, a petition of more than 6½ thousand signatures from that region was presented to the Victorian parliament calling for these types of radical animal activist groups to be stripped of their charitable status and for the strengthening of farm trespass laws in the state of Victoria.
I absolutely agree that farm trespass laws need to be strengthened right around Australia, not just to protect people and businesses but because biosecurity is actually extraordinarily serious. To not take it with a huge degree of seriousness is to let down our entire agricultural community. Just recently, I think this was reported this week, a Tasmanian farmer has actually been jailed for 11 months for illegally importing garlic. That shows how seriously we do actually take this in our laws, in some cases. But a $1 fine for breaching biosecurity! My goodness me, that just shows how out of touch some parts of our judiciary and our community are about the seriousness of this.
Biosecurity threats to our nation, and our agricultural producers in particular, are extraordinarily real and are something that farmers over the last 20 years have become increasingly concerned about and proactive about presenting. There are many farms now where you need to do wash downs on vehicles and you need to clean yourself, your boots and your own equipment; they'll check every vehicle that comes onto a particular property. They do not do this for fun or to try to keep the cameras away from their businesses; they do it to protect their livelihoods and to protect the livelihoods of every other Australian farmer.
Stopping people from inciting others to trespass on agricultural land, to disrupt agricultural businesses or to threaten the livelihoods of Australian farmers and related farm businesses is absolutely essential. That's why this bill is very important and essential, and I commend it to the Senate.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (18:59): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, which is actually a bill to jail someone for sending a text message or making a Facebook post, yet the government is trying to trump it up and say that it is a bill to protect farmers. Well, what an absolute crock! There are already state laws that cover trespass on private land. It's very interesting that the Liberal government frequently wash their hands of issues, saying, 'Oh, these are state matters; we don't want to get involved.' There is no logic in their reason for getting involved in this instance.
But what I want to particularly take issue with is the notion that this government wants to stand up for farmers. As if! Look at the scoreboard. When I was elected to this place in 2010, the first bill I introduced was a bill to give farmers, traditional owners and other landholders the right to say no to access to their land by coal and coal seam gas companies. Farmers don't have the right to say no to access by coal and coal seam gas companies. There's one very limited tenure in Western Australia where they do, but in the rest of the nation they don't. We thought that was actually a very fair approach—that if our land managers, food producers and fibre producers actually want to continue to feed us and to continue to export those goods to the world then they should have the right to continue to do so, rather than have their land turned into an open-cut coalmine or pockmarked with wells for coal seam gas, which will poison their water and lower the water table. So, again, we thought it was actually a very sensible solution—a very sensible suggestion to allow farmers to say no to coal and coal seam gas. If they want to keep farming, if they want their kids to be able to do so on that plot of land, why would this parliament stand in the way? Well, isn't it interesting that these very same so-called champions of farmers' rights voted against that bill every single time? It is sheer hypocrisy.
I keep reintroducing that bill, and I'll keep doing so. I live in hope that one day we will get enough support to actually allow farmers the right to protect their land from incompatible land uses, whether that be coalmining, whether it be coal seam gas extraction or, frankly, whether it be urban development. Food security and our good-quality agricultural land is such a precious resource. Less than two per cent of Queensland is good-quality agricultural land. It should be protected. Yet this government, who have the ability to deliver that protection, have chosen not only to do nothing but to actively vote against it. And they have the audacity to come in here and say that this bill is about protecting farmers. This bill is on a matter that's already regulated by state laws; it doesn't require federal intervention. They try to trump this up. Well, it's an absolute crock, and I think people will see straight through it.
If they really wanted to protect farmers, not only would they give them that right to say no to coal and coal seam gas extraction but they'd have a drought policy and they'd have a climate policy. There are many fantastic farming groups who are crying out for climate action from this government. In fact, there's a group called Farmers For Climate Action, who I've met with on occasion. There are many farming sustainability groups who can see what climate change is doing to their own economic productivity and to the capacity of their land to continue to produce food and fibre. They are begging this government for a climate policy. And what's this government giving them? A law to criminalise people sending text messages. What an absolute joke—no climate policy, no decent drought policy, no protection for farmers to protect their land from coal and coal seam gas extraction. But we're supposed to believe that this bill is meant to do something for farmers.
Again, if this government actually wanted to do something for farmers, where are they on unfair contracts that the supermarket duopoly continue to force onto small and medium enterprises, ripping them off, underpaying them and undervaluing them? This is meant to be your core business, and you're absolutely nowhere on it. Instead, you've trumped up a fake threat that you can now overlegislate for, because your real intent is to criminalise protest. You just cannot hack the criticism, so you're going to criminalise it.
Sadly, this is not an isolated case. I'm from the state of Queensland, where the state Labor administration have just said that they want to criminalise climate change protesters. They're going to bring in tough new laws to crack down on people who are begging for a livable planet for us all to share. Way to shoot the messenger, folks! Why don't you actually engage on the substance of the issues that members of our community—your constituents, people who vote—are trying to bring to your attention?
You are so blinded by the donations from the coal and gas industry, so blinded by the dirty money, that you will not even engage on the substance of what people are begging you to engage on.
We stand with those climate protesters, and we stand for strong animal welfare laws. If you want people to stop having to investigate whether animal welfare laws are being breached then why don't you actually have an independent body to enforce those said standards? The standards are too weak, but they are not even enforced. If you really want to address this issue then why don't you actually have an independent body that is funded and charged with doing just that?
I thought it was very interesting—and my colleague Senator Faruqi, who is an absolute champion on this issue, mentioned this in her contribution—that recently this very government prepared a survey called, I think, 'Australia's Shifting Mindset'. It showed that 10 per cent of Australians think that our animal welfare standards are adequate. So 90 per cent of Australians think that our animal welfare standards are not adequate. And so, rather than address that issue, where clearly an overwhelming majority of Australians agree that we should be treating these creatures with decency and with a level of respect for the sentience that they possess, the government just want to shut down debate and criminalise protests and they are happy for all of that maltreatment to continue in fowl stalls and feedlots and for battery hens. Then they have the audacity to want to shut down the people who want to expose breaches of those standards. Have some self-respect. If you have these standards, at least enforce them, rather than criminalising people that just want to see those standards upheld and ideally want to see those standards strengthened.
I'm afraid that we think this bill is an absolute waste of time. It's a complete joke. They are a government in search of an agenda, and they just love kicking the little guy. The latest 'little guys' are people who are actually concerned about the welfare and wellbeing of other creatures. They are heroes. They are standing up for the voiceless, and the government have the audacity to criminalise them. Rather than addressing the issue, rather than obviating the need for them to check on whether those standards are being enforced by having a body charged with investigating and enforcing them, they would rather crack down on them. The government just continue to find new ways of embarrassing themselves.
I want to make a few additional points. These laws would impose higher penalties on those who seek to expose animal welfare offences than on those who are committing those offences. So this government thinks it's worse to expose a breach of animal welfare law than it is to actually be committing those breaches. What kind of value system is that? That is absolutely topsy-turvy. How about when mining companies breach laws? Are they going to get jailed? Are they going to be criminalised for sending text messages? Oh, no! Look at the levels of some of the fines that have been received. The New Acland coalmine, which illegally drilled 27 sites, was fined a huge total of 3,152 bucks! Wow, I'm sure that really set them back! Adani, when it spewed coal-laden sludge into the reef, was fined—what was it?—$12,000. And of course those who protest and demand a safe climate will be targeted by our state governments. And those who are seeking to protect the wellbeing of animals will now be subject to offences that carry a penalty that is greater than the penalty for the people committing those offences in the first place.
I think this bill is an absolute farce. I was incredibly disappointed that the Labor opposition, who spoke quite passionately and strongly about this in their contributions, then said they were going to vote for it. I really don't understand the logic there. They prepared a fairly strong report in the committee stage. I know everything's on the table for review, but come on! Please reconsider your stance on this. I understand that there will be some amendments to come, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing those. I hope that that might salvage what seems to be a very perplexing position after the strong rhetoric that you've put on the record.
I want to conclude by saying: if you really want to protect farmers then why don't you vote for my bill to give them the right to say no to coal and coal seam gas next time you give me the pleasure of bringing it on? I know it doesn't happen much. We don't get private senator's time very often. But I would love your support next time I can bring that bill on. I think there will be some support from other quarters, too, and I would welcome that. But, if you really want to protect farmers, why don't you ban those unfair contracts where farmers are being ripped off by the supermarket duopoly—underpaid and undercut?
And why don't you actually take action on the drought? Why don't you acknowledge that it is being deepened and worsened by climate change, fuelled by your donors from the coal industry? Why don't you develop a climate policy while you're at it? Then and only then will you have any credibility in saying that you are standing up for farming communities. I might finish by saying that those farming communities also need decent health care, they need decent education and they wouldn't mind decent internet—how about you get onto that too?
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (19:10): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. I support very strongly the need to introduce offences for the vegan terrorists who are causing trouble, raising hell and preventing primary producers from earning an honest living and supplying food to the wider community. These people are not legitimate activists. They are not serving the betterment of the community. They are not doing good. They are terrorists in the very true meaning of the word. Their actions have nothing to do with their so-called concerns for animal welfare. They are about pushing their own agenda and trying to restrict the freedom of others to live how they choose.
I commend the government for putting forward this bill. It provides a solution to a problem that has been let go for far long. It has been given too much fake legitimacy and has been encouraged up until now to keep going—and to even ramp up the violent acts and the trespassing, due to the soft and gutless actions of the judges. In perhaps the most well-known of recent cases, the Gippy Goat Cafe in Victoria eventually had to close, with the loss of local jobs, after four months of constant harassment, vile statements and threats. How can these vegan terrorists in any way think that their personal obsession to not eat meat gives them some sort of right to push their beliefs on other people in a violent, disruptive and criminal way? Meat eaters are a part of Australian society—even I love a good steak—and it's going to stay that way. That's just the way it is, so get used to it. Meat eaters are not pushing their beliefs and practices onto vegans and vegetarians, and we don't accept being told what we can and can't eat either.
Australia is still a free country. We are relatively free to mostly live how we want and eat what we want, and so-called activism or any other pressure to try to push alternative views on others is not welcome. To show how far these terrorists will stoop to achieve their dark agenda, I note that the owners of the Gippy Goat Cafe had been personally subjected to an appalling stream of threats of extreme violence and threats against their families, their staff and even family members of their staff—how cowardly and disgusting! The staff were subjected to daily threats and harassment by phone, and the business could not in good conscience ask them to continue working under such conditions. As a consequence, the owners felt they had no choice but to close the business, and approximately eight jobs were lost. It beggars belief that anyone in Australian society could think that these harassing and violent acts are somehow legitimate and acceptable and that tragic outcomes like this are somehow acceptable.
These idiots need their heads read, and the public need to feel safe in the knowledge that they have some level of protection and that their food supplies are safe. One of these morons was charged with stealing a goat during one of their raids. She was later fined just $1 by the presiding magistrate for a related offence. In another raid on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, another idiot was fined $200 for breaking into a piggery. Another participant in the raid, which involved 100 people, was subsequently fined just $150 with no conviction recorded. The piggery went into lockdown, with 30 of the vegan terrorists wreaking havoc inside while the remaining 70 remained gathered outside. But, with fines so low, there was no deterrent to these sorts of disruptive crimes, so it's no wonder that these raids just kept going and even ratcheted up, with an ever-increasing negative impact on the community. Commentator Jan Davis in the Hobart Mercury made this point:
If this level of behaviour was in the city, we would be seeing more urgency. Action is needed to ensure farmers receive the protections anyone should have the right to expect in a civil society. Farmers are rightly alarmed that their homes can be invaded in the dead of night, streamed live on the internet, only for offenders to walk away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
While I have great respect for some in the judiciary, the judges who issue such lenient sentences quite simply have been gutless. They are gutless in that they are in a position to protect the community and legitimate business people through their position, but they haven't stepped up to the plate. They are possibly allowing their personal views to influence the outcome of these matters. By being so lenient, they are only encouraging the terrorists to go out and commit these crimes with no regard to the impact they are having on lives, on the health of farming families, on profitability and even on the welfare of the animals they supposedly want to protect—because animals are dying because of these actions, which I will expand on later.
We are in a position in parliament now to pass this bill and create a new law, because judges were not bringing down heavy fines to deter these ongoing crimes. This bill is a welcome and much-needed move to provide the protection that is deserved by these farmers, business people, families and residents.
I was reminded today of a case some years ago in Queensland where these terrorists stormed a chicken farm and promptly dropped the protective shutters on one huge chicken shed. The resulting sudden loud noise caused the deaths of many hundreds of chickens—who, as we know, are incredibly susceptible to extreme changes in their environment, including things like loud noise caused by thunder and the like. In a case in Spain just in the last week, a similar terrorist reportedly attempted to rescue some rabbits. She rescued 16 rabbits, but her actions resulted in the deaths of some 90 baby rabbits. What ironic and absurd outcomes! They demonstrate the bizarre, mindless and foolish motivations of these people. And all the while they think they are doing good!
As my One Nation colleague Senator Roberts mentioned earlier, these trespassers also risk compromising the health and safety of our food and damaging the integrity of biosecurity on our farms. He noted that not one industry was safe: abattoirs, fish farms, cattle farms, sheep farms, chicken farms or even produce and fruit farms.
Thankfully, we have this bill to help address the issue. We already have laws in place that prevent trespassing, but this bill helps further in that it creates an offence of using a carriage service—the internet, emails, the web and phone services—to encourage and push others to trespass on private property and to cause damage to the operations of a primary producer. The bill doesn't prevent legitimate protest generally in Australia, as the freedom to conduct sensible and mature actions against important matters remains. This bill also doesn't prevent bona fide journalists from covering any such protests. It also protects whistleblowers in cases where the release of information aids in exposing a genuine crime, such as animal cruelty—which is something that all of us should oppose, as I do.
In this bill, it's about time that such a sensible protective measure was introduced. Our farmers work hard, long hours. They are almost always up before sunrise and are still working away when night falls. They make many sacrifices. They often work in solitary conditions. They work physically hard for the benefit of the consumers they deliver food to. And they don't need unpredictable and dangerous terrorists turning up unannounced, with misdirected motivations, causing disruption, damage and, potentially, personal harm. It makes me wonder if these so-called activists ever give any thought to how it feels to have their own homes suddenly raided by violent and noisy strangers. I'm sure they'd be the first ones to cry foul and complain to the authorities if that were to happen.
One Nation delegates recently visited a pre-export feedlot that has also been a victim of these so-called activists. Among the disruptive actions these activists took were the cutting of brake lines on tractors and farming equipment, which potentially put the lives of workers in danger, and the cutting of power cables, which also had the impact of stopping water pumps that delivered water to the livestock. These actions are hypocritical. They prove that the activists have no real idea of what they are doing and that their so-called care for animals is actually having the opposite effect in many cases and raising the anger of the general public. Farming—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. You will be in continuation when the debate resumes.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (19:20): I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Papua New Guinea
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (19:20): I rise to speak about my recent visit to Papua New Guinea as part of the Australian Regional Leadership Initiative, a Save the Children Australia project supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With just a few kilometres separating parts of the Torres Strait Islands from Papua New Guinea, this fascinating country of eight million people to our immediate north is of enormous strategic importance to Far North Queensland, including the regional hub of Cairns. Our five-day tour included Port Moresby, Mount Hagen and Goroka. I was joined on the trip by my parliamentary colleagues Josh Burns, Senator Rex Patrick, Senator Hollie Hughes, Katie Allen and Dave Sharma, as well as journalists and photographer Alex Ellinghausen, who captured the contradictions and complexities of PNG as only he can—its youthful, tribal, brutal yet generous nature. I'm sure it made for a welcome break from question time! I would like to take this opportunity to thank Save the Children, especially Paul Rawlings, Sarah Carter and Marion Stanton, for their hard work in organising the tour. I also want to thank the staff at DFAT who expertly guided us around the country and were happy to answer many of our questions—most of them, anyway!
Once in Papua New Guinea, it's easy to see why the Australian government is partnering with non-government organisations to focus on lifting literacy and delivering primary health care. We visited two hospitals and various health clinics. The friendly nurses and doctors who work hard with the limited resources they have are unable to overcome the challenge of the lack of well-trained workers. Someone, somewhere, will need to provide the training for these future workforces, and rapidly. There is no reason that that place can't be Far North Queensland.
One of the best things about living in Cairns is the close connection to PNG and the Pacific. Cairns is Australia's gateway to the Pacific. The proximity of Queensland to Papua New Guinea presents both risks and opportunities. Queensland is just four kilometres away from Papua New Guinea. You could probably shout from one island and be heard on another; this was said to me in jest while we were in Port Moresby. In fact the historic Torres Strait Protected Zone allows free movement for customary purposes between coastal areas of PNG and the Torres Strait Islands in Queensland. As a result, Far North Queensland and PNG are the closest of friends.
Many people from the Pacific region travel for work, for education and to receive health care. These are opportunities for trade, investment and jobs between our two countries. But there are also immediate and underlying threats to security from civil unrest and the outbreak of communicable diseases. If those threats reach Australia, Cairns is the city that will feel the impact first. The importance, then, of managing those risks and developing opportunities for prosperity for both our nations is the reason that Advance Cairns, a peak advocacy and economic development body for Far North Queensland, has been calling for a Cairns-based Office of the Pacific. I will be advocating in favour of this proposal with my federal Labor colleagues. It is the reason that Mayor Bob Manning is calling for a PNG rugby league team in the NRL. It is the reason that the government must build the Cairns university hospital, which will specialise in tropical health. It is the reason that part of the Regional Airports Program, promised by this government in the last budget, must be used to upgrade the Horn Island Airport in Queensland, which provides biosecurity services to the Torres Strait Islands.
All of these reasons make Papua New Guinea and Far North Queensland vital to one another's future prosperity and stability. That is why I was incredibly disappointed to arrive back from this trip to hear the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, who recently dismissed Pacific Islanders as the people who pick our fruit. I was in Port Moresby visiting a training college and meeting with hospitality workers, and I can tell you that his comments couldn't be further from the truth.
Mr McCormack's negative views of Pacific Island workers reveal this government's deep misunderstanding of the challenges facing Papua New Guinea and the strategic role it plays in our region and to Cairns. There is a fundamental difference between issuing well-meaning press releases and committing to do the work to make generational change. If we want a safe, stable, prosperous region, we must work with our Pacific neighbours and not patronise them, as Mr McCormack did.
East Timor
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (19:25): I thank Senator Green for making a contribution about the trip we did to PNG. It was, indeed, a great trip. I'm going to move next door to Timor-Leste now and talk about the strategic blunder we are about to make in respect of East Timor. I was in East Timor two weekends ago for the 20th anniversary of their independence, and I managed to witness the president of that country giving a firsthand warning, or indication, to the Prime Minister and the foreign minister that things are not right.
Let's just go back in history. In the 1960s, Australia worked out that there were significant oil and gas resources underneath the Timor Sea, much closer to Timor than they were to Australia. So we set about trying to take that oil. We did so initially by just refusing to negotiate with the Portuguese over a maritime boundary. Then, when Portugal was pulling out and Timor had the opportunity to become independent, Australia encouraged Indonesia, back in 1975, to invade East Timor. That's when the occupation commenced. Two hundred thousand East Timorese died throughout that occupation.
Then, in 1999, finally they had their popular consultation. Australia sent INTERFET up to East Timor to assist temporarily in ensuring that they gained their independence. Then, because we were still after the oil and the maritime boundary in international law would have placed a medium line between Australia and Timor and given them the entitlement to that oil—the proper entitlement to that oil—we removed ourselves from the jurisdiction of the ICJ, and the Tribunal on the International Law of the Sea, such that the Timorese had to directly negotiate with Australia.
We all know that in 2004—it's beyond dispute; beyond denial—we then spied on the East Timorese while they were negotiating with us, to gain advantage and, indeed, to defraud them of their oil resources, and we were caught out, leading the East Timorese to initiate action in The Hague. In attempting to derail that particular process, in 2013 the AFP and ASIO raided the offices of their lawyers here in Australia. But, thankfully, after all of that, Timor-Leste has now negotiated a maritime border with Australia.
In a 40-minute speech that the president gave at celebrations on the 20th anniversary, in the presence of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister, Australia was mentioned once. It was mentioned as the place where people go to from Timor, which is in recession, to get a better life and a better job. Indonesia was thanked. Portugal was thanked for the freedom efforts, as was the United Nations. But the president remained silent on Australia. The reason he was silent on Australia is that, even after the treaty has been negotiated and the Timorese have decided that they want to put processing onshore, on the southern coast of Timor, we are still lobbying and still trying to use our diplomatic forces to get that oil processed here in Australia.
But let me tell you what's happening in the meantime. In the meantime, the Chinese are building dual-lane, dual-carriageway, freeways on the southern plateau and they are building powerlines, and the Indonesians are building airports and power stations—and we are being left out. This is an opportunity for Australia to be contributing and helping our Timorese friends, but we are not. Instead, we are still trying to get the oil. What's going to happen over the next few years as the Timorese continue down the path they want to go is that we will end up with a significant Chinese presence on the southern coast of East Timor, and we will lose out strategically and we will lose the good friend that Timor ought to be.
Indigenous Ranger Forum
Senator McCARTHY ( Northern Territory — Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate ) ( 19:30 ): I rise to speak about one of the culturally important events that took place in Darwin over the winter break. The north Australia Indigenous Ranger Forum , which was held in Darwin, on Larrakia-Kenbi country, is in its third year and brings together r anger groups from Cape York right across the Top End to the Kimberl e y. I was able to head across to the gathering , by ferry from Darwin Harbour to Cox Peninsula , to meet the 400 rangers who gathered for knowledge-sharing, networking and professional development. More than 60 ranger groups from Cairns to Broome came together over three days and camped out there. It was organised by the Northern Land Council. I was also pleased to be able to invite the shadow minister for northern Australia, Senator Murray Watt , who was in Darwin that week . He has been up in the Northern Territory quite a number of times , in fact. We might have to make him an honorary Territorian ! He came to attend the ranger forum .
Techniques in fire management help militate against destructive bushfires in the Northern Territory , and sea monitoring— for turtles, dugongs and dolphins, as well as for ghost nets and debris —helps to better protect sea life. For those of you who don't know, ghost nets are a really significant issue for our sea creatures right around Australia but in particular in the north. So our sea rangers are very focused on making sure that those ghost nets are removed from the oceans , as they cause tremendous damage to our wildlife. More and more of our ranger groups are combining those techniques that they use to look after our waterways and our lands. They're combining their traditional techniques with new research and technology, working in partnership with universities and government to upskill , and to protect and preserve biodiversity in the best possible way.
That is why the Indigenous Ranger Forum is so important. It's a welcome place where groups can share knowledge, learn new skills and also connect with one another . You don't often get to see each other because the ranger groups are based in very isolated parts of northern Australia. It's also important as a mental health exercise, to bring together that community spirit and to know that you are doing something very worthwhile, not just from a cultural perspective but over all for our country , in terms of looking after Australia.
For Mardbalk ranger Nicholas Hunter, the highlight of the forum was learning how drones can enhance a ranger group's capabilities in compliance, fire, bio security and erosion management. He said:
Using drones can save a lot of time and help with safety, for example if you ' re fire burning you wouldn ' t want to get trapped in an area where someone has been burning. You can send the drones in to check and they can take video shots or do live feeds.
Also for protection of sacred site areas and ceremony grounds, drones can be useful.
He'll now take the new skills learnt from the forum back to Wurrawi on Goulburn I sland to share with his colleagues.
I was also very proud to see the Li-Anthawirriyarra sea rangers , who came from my home country of the Yanyuwa people in Borroloola ; and the Waanyi-Garawa rangers , who are also my clan group , from the gulf area of Robinson River and Wollogorang Station . They came together and shared information.
I'm certainly proud of the strength Indigenous rangers show in caring for country and looking after sites , and protecting and preserving what we know is important to preserve. It's also providing really important employment opportunities. Rangers are often seen as the leaders in the community. They're looked up to and admired and they take that role very seriously, often carrying the struggles of others' lives and families on their shoulders. So I certainly thank each and every one of the rangers for the work they do and for the love they show for their culture, their country and their people. I'm immensely proud to be able to acknowledge the work of Indigenous rangers across the Northern Territory and all people who work with them—Indigenous and non-Indigenous—right across northern Australia, and I pay tribute to them. I'll speak on another night of the Darwin Festival.
New South Wales Legislation: Health
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (19:35): I rise to speak on a matter very close to my heart. New South Wales is currently having a really important debate on abortion law reform—reform that has the overwhelming support of the community. The upper house of the New South Wales parliament will vote on the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill next week, after this bill passed the lower house in August. It is now inevitable that New South Wales' archaic abortion laws will go into the dustbin of history where they well and truly belong. I want to congratulate all the activists and advocates for women's rights now and throughout history who have made this moment possible. I particularly want to acknowledge the Pro-Choice Alliance and the work of Greens MPs Jenny Leong and Abigail Boyd, and I thank the cross-party working group, including Alex Greenwich MP, which has brought forward this bill to decriminalise abortion.
It's been just over two years since my bill to fully decriminalise abortion was not supported in the upper house of the New South Wales parliament when I was a member of that place. I can still vividly recall the anger and disbelief of those present in the public gallery. Women's rights activists of all generations were overcome with emotion. They were outraged that, in the 21st century, politicians would vote to deny them their reproductive rights. The outcome was disappointing, but I knew that moment was not the end of our campaign. The debate on my bill was an essential milestone in putting this long-neglected issue squarely on the public and political agenda. The century-long parliamentary silence was well and truly broken.
The introduction of a cross-party bill to decriminalise abortion has only reinforced my belief that strong community campaigns have the power to shift the political agenda. When I introduced my bill, I was told, 'It's not the right time for abortion law reform.' Other reproductive rights campaigners before me had been told the same thing over and over again for decades. But we know the issue of body autonomy for women and all people accessing abortions has been pushed to the back of the political debate for far too long. There comes a time when enough is enough and the naysayers and the forces of patriarchy can no longer hold back momentum for reform. I'm so glad that that time has come for New South Wales. But the debate and conduct of the anti-choice politicians and groups has been predictably disgraceful, with reheated versions of the same old baseless scare campaigns that have been used time after time to try and deny us our bodily rights. This has never, and will never, deter people from coming out in droves to support women's rights to choose our right to our bodies and our right to make decisions.
I'm proud to see this renewed push for decriminalising abortion. I hope with all my heart that the people of New South Wales finally get their reproductive rights. Once the bill has been passed, we must quickly move to address issues of limited abortion access for women, especially in rural and regional areas and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, migrant women and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Access to reproductive health should not be a geographical, racial or class lottery. All public hospitals should offer pregnancy termination services through bulk-billing so that no-one is left out of pocket.
Women's rights have always been hard fought for. Together, we have transformed the movement for reproductive rights into a political inevitability. To my former colleagues in the New South Wales upper house, I say, 'Let's get this bill passed and prove that human rights aren't matters of political expediency.' To the people of New South Wales who share our passion and are restless to see this done, now is the time to act. We've rallied together to demand change before, and now I ask that you come and march with us in Sydney this Saturday, 14 September for women's right to choose. I'm proud to say that every single Greens member of the New South Wales parliament will be voting pro-choice. I wish the same could be said of all the other parties. I urge you to contact MPs and ask them to trust women, support the bill and vote pro-choice.
Timor Sea: Oil Spill
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:40): I rise tonight to talk about an issue on which I have spoken on many occasions in this place, and that is the Montara oil spill. I'll continue to do that until this issue is finally addressed. 21 August this year marked 10 years since one of Australia's worst oil spills and ecological disasters. For 75 days—and I remember every single one of those days—the Montara oil rig spilled 40 million litres of oil into the Timor Sea. This caused immeasurable damage to our distinctive marine ecosystems and sea life, and it had impacts on the fishing zone and on Indonesian fishers and seaweed farmers. Ten years later, we still don't know the full ecological impact of the Montara spill, and now we may never know. We don't know how much oil spilled into the ocean. It's estimated to be anywhere from 4,750 tonnes to 23,630 tonnes. We don't know how many marine animals were killed. We don't know how far the oil spread. We don't know the impact that it had on Indonesian fishers and seaweed farmers.
The rig didn't suddenly fail—and I wouldn't call the incident an accident. There were a series of avoidable poor decisions and regulatory failures which caused the spill. In 2012, the then Thai-owned oil company PTTEP was ordered to pay a mere $510,000 fine for the oil spill. I say 'mere' because I ask: does that really reflect fairly the massive amount of long-term environmental damage and other harm caused by the spill?
During the crisis, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority sprayed a combination of seven chemicals, which were dispersants, totalling 184,135 litres, onto the slick to disperse the oil. We now use only one of those chemicals in Australia because of the severe consequences of the other chemicals on sea life, but they were used at that time. Two of the chemicals sprayed actually increased the toxicity of the oil. We don't know how far the oil spread when the accident occurred, and we don't know how far the dispersants spread. I make the point about the two of them because both can have impacts on marine life and on seaweed. This is a hotly contested issue, and it is at the heart of the deep concerns that continue to be felt by Indonesian fishers and seaweed farmers, particularly those who live on Nusa Tenggara Timur.
Governments over these 10 years—in other words, all of the governments during that time—have largely ignored this issue. It is estimated that this spill is having ongoing impacts on Indonesian fishers and seaweed farmers at a cost of up to $1.5 billion each year. I have met some of the Indonesian fishers and seaweed farmers who have lost their livelihoods to the Montara oil spill. I sat down and I spoke to them on Nusa Tenggara Timur. I have heard of the devastating impacts from the spill on seaweed farmers and fishers and the local economy. I think that I'm probably the only Australian parliamentarian to have visited Nusa Tenggara Timur to assess the impacts of the spill. The ecological studies examining the fallout of the spill have only examined the impact of the spill on Australia. The fact is that Indonesian fishers and seaweed farmers are currently taking court action to address this issue because our governments have not taken the necessary action. Our government could help these Indonesian seaweed farmers and fishers very strongly if they were to work with the Indonesian government to get the company responsible to fund a study to look at those impacts. The oil is still there underneath the soil on the foreshore. You can test that. You could find out. I beg the government to take action to work with the Indonesian government to actually just get the company in this instance to fund the study. (Time expired)
Senate adjourned at 19 : 45