The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
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:
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 1 pm.
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—private briefings—
Today, from midday.
Thursday, 17 October 2019, from 9.50am.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—from 9.40 am—
Wednesday, 16 October 2019.
Wednesday, 27 November 2019.
Wednesday, 4 December 2019.
Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology—Select Committee—private briefing on Wednesday, 16 October 2019, from 11.30 am.
Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Wednesday, 16 October 2019, from 11.30 am.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Thursday, 17 October 2019, from 11 am.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
President
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I inform the Senate that I will be temporarily absent from part of the sitting of the Senate tomorrow, to attend a family funeral. I shall return at approximately 5 pm. In accordance with standing orders, the Deputy President will take the chair in my absence.
BILLS
Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019
Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (12:02): I rise to continue the remarks that I was making last night on the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019. I was speaking of the extra $4.5 billion in funding that will be available to non-government schools over the next decade. This extra funding is not at the expense of government schools. From 2017 to 2029, Commonwealth funding for government schools will increase by 75 per cent, on average, and funding for non-government schools will increase by 55 per cent, per student, on average. Secure long-term funding is being provided for all students, based on need. We can do this because of our strong economic position.
When the time comes, the pipeline is in place to ensure that young Australians can move into longer-term careers—careers which have been made possible because of the environment that this government has put in place which has seen record jobs growth and lower unemployment because Australian businesses of all sizes have the confidence to invest and to grow. In fact, more than 1.3 million more Australians are in jobs since this government was elected. Nearly 60 per cent of these people are in full-time jobs.
Our 2013 promise for one million new jobs to be created within five years was delivered, ahead of schedule. As a government, we are ensuring that jobseekers have the tools they need to find work and that those young Australians who need a little more support are able to access it. The government's new Skilling Australians Fund is just one such initiative which will see more apprenticeships and vocational opportunities created. Over the next five years alone, 80,000 apprenticeships will be created in occupations with skill shortages, through incentive payments for employers and apprentices. We are also establishing 10 local industry training hubs in areas of high youth unemployment, to ensure vocational education programs are tailored to meet the workforce needs and skill demands.
Compare our track record to that of those opposite. When they were last in government, and Mr Shorten was the minister for employment, there was a decline of 110,000 apprenticeships—that's 22 per cent—in just one year, 2012-13. That 110,000 apprenticeships were gone in just one year is a special achievement in and of itself, but, of course, it is not one that should be applauded. It is something that those opposite should be quite embarrassed about. If you contrast that with our figures, you'll see we're delivering on our commitment to get more young Australians into work. Over 100,000 young people aged between 15 and 24 got a job in 2017-18. That is the largest number in a financial year on record. We on this side are reducing youth unemployment and are helping young people find jobs. Our Youth Jobs PaTH program—prepare, trial, hire—helps 17- to-24-year-old jobseekers move from welfare to work. It is a program that Labor do not support. This program has already helped over 43,000 young people get into a job, yet Labor continue to stand in the way. We will expand PaTH to pilot 10 industry-led programs to better target the training and internship experiences of young people. They need to get practical experience in the workplace. This program deals with the chicken-and-egg situation where employers say they want people who are skilled, who have a little bit of experience, so they can give them a go, but jobseekers say, 'How do I get that experience if that's what everyone is saying?' PaTH deals with that problem. We'll expand PaTH into 10 industry-led programs to better target the training and internship experiences of young people.
In my first speech I spoke about the VTEC program, the model pioneered by Fortescue Metals Group and trialled in Fitzroy Crossing, which has become a national program with national success. It has been funded by this government. The VTEC program has helped over 10,000 long-term unemployed Indigenous jobseekers, many with significant and multiple barriers to employment, to find work. The retention rate among these jobseekers, having been placed into a job, is over 70 per cent—70 per cent of them are still in work some six months later. This is a significant improvement, particularly when you consider the level of disadvantage and the types of barriers that some of those jobseekers have. As a Liberal, I am extremely proud that the coalition government has committed over $40 million to rolling out VTECs across Australia.
Our record on universities is also particularly strong. We are providing a record $17.7 billion to universities across this country and working with them to ensure that that leads to better outcomes for students. The funding is targeted and is being delivered to practical programs which are in the best interests of the student and the nation. We're also ensuring that all research is in the public interest. Taxpayer support for universities should always provide a return for taxpayers—they are the ones investing in it—so students, their families and the broader community who benefit from this world-class research are able to see the benefit to them. And this is undertaken in Australian universities. In Western Australia this investment is supporting key industrial outcomes, particularly in space, where we are on the doorstep to securing a critical share of global industry growth that is poised to be worth some $400 billion in the coming decades. This investment is also supporting research into new energy and critical raw minerals. I commend my colleague Senator Canavan for the important work that he has done in this space. It's also supporting agriculture, ocean research and the creation of groundbreaking technologies across the broader resources sector, among many others.
With all this, it is important that all Australians are able to access these opportunities. We have a strong economy and we have key traditional and new industries poised for growth. That's why we are also providing over $400 million in support for rural and regional students to go to university and have helped over 170,000 students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. We are also making sure that these opportunities work for and are accessible to everyone, no matter who they are, where they come from or where they started in life. In conclusion, our record as a government on education and on delivering practical career outcomes is strong. I commend these bills to the house.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:09): When it comes to education in this country, if we are talking about access for those who want to go to university or TAFE, what we have seen demonstrated over the last six years by this government is shameful. To have Senator O'Sullivan come into this chamber and lecture us in relation to the opportunities for young Australians to get a job, when in my home state of Tasmania we have excessively high youth unemployment—in fact we've lost over 5,000 jobs in recent time under the leadership of this government. So, coming into this chamber as a member of the coalition government, there is nothing to be proud of. University is supposed to be universally available for all young Australians, but that certainly is not the case.
But I am really here to speak about the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019. Labor supports these bills; however, there are elements that need to be commented on. We treat education as a priority. That is what Labor does. Year in, year out, when we have been in government and at every election, we go with a substantially strong education policy to take to the Australian people, because we believe that education is the gateway to having the future that all Australians aspire to. How students are treated is so important, whether you are talking about early childhood education—and we know the track record of this government there—or funding of education in general.
Whether it's contributions from the Liberal state government in Tasmania or this federal government, every tier of education has been cut in my home state. We are not investing the amount of money that we need to. Those opposite have recklessly damaged the quality of Australia's world-class higher education system during their entire two terms of government. Under the Abbott-Turnbull and now Morrison government, the Liberals have cut billions from universities by effectively capping undergraduate places and slashing research funding. These are the facts that need to be placed on the public record.
Remember that famous interview that Mr Tony Abbott gave on the eve of the 2013 election? He famously said, 'No cuts to schools; no cuts to hospitals or to pensions.' Well, Mr Abbott took a knife to education in this country. That is the reality. We are still paying a heavy price now, and I am sure that our country will pay a heavier price in future, economically, culturally and socially, as we move forward with this Liberal government being re-elected.
On the other hand, Labor has a proud story to tell when it comes to education. It was Labor that created Australia's world renowned income-contingent loan scheme, HECS now HELP, the Higher Education Loan Program. Unlike the Liberals, we believe that funding education is an investment in our nation's future prosperity, not a cost burden. It is an investment in Australia being a country of hope and aspiration.
The changes in these bills would introduce small charges for higher education providers, including universities, to access their HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP schemes. The bill also introduces a small application fee for prospective education providers when they are applying to become approved providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
This government has a track record of not consulting with the sector and not consulting with educators and educational institutions. But Labor understands that governments must consult, because we all learn from diverse opinions and from those who actually work in the education space. That is why Labor referred these bills to a committee for better consultation. There is no doubt that education and its delivery has changed and continues to change. What we need to ensure is that courses and skills meet job demands on the ground.
In my home state of Tasmania, we need to educate our young people so that they can go into jobs as the employees that businesses require for the future. We have a fantastic and very advanced agricultural sector which requires a certain set of skills, so our educational institutions must provide those courses so that students can find the jobs once they graduate. It's good for the individual, because they can find work as soon as they graduate, and it's good for our economy.
The University of Tasmania transformation project has potential for my home state, but if we do not get the settings right in terms of finding the jobs and educating for those gaps then we won't be able to meet the demands of the future. TasTAFE is another great institution that this government has continued to cut the funding for over the past six years. We all understand now, but 30 years ago, people were saying, 'The panacea for a great future in this country is that you must go to university.' Well, you don't have to go to university to be successful. We now have in this country the basic shortages of skills which are needed right across this country. What we should be doing so that we don't have to bring the skilled migrants into this country is funding our TAFE institutions so we have the best teachers, the best instructors and the best tradespeople who are upskilling the people we need going forward to the future.
We have a lot of infrastructure being built in Tasmania, and trying to find a tradesperson is hard—whether you want to do an extension to your home, or build a home or build a new hotel. It means we're seeing this pipeline where, all of a sudden, we have this massive demand for tradespeople and then it falls off. We have to do something about that so that we ensure that we don't lose the tradespeople in Tasmania who are working there now in six to 12 months because there aren't any future projects. But today it's been acknowledged that teachers and instructors in the TAFE system in Tasmania are actually losing confidence because of the cuts that have been made to their sector. There have been resignations and course delays. If you're a young person undertaking a traineeship or an apprenticeship and your course has been delayed, that puts you backwards and behind. You won't finish your requirements from an educational point of view, and the delay in being fully qualified means that you will learn less money. That may not worry those on the opposite side, but it certainly worries me and I know that it worries others on this side of the chamber.
What we should be doing is investing more in TAFE, not making these cuts. As I said, having a Liberal state government and a Liberal federal government, we've seen education eroded in my home state. We already know that we have some of the worst figures when it comes to retention of young people to get their HSC and go on to university or to TAFE. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government to ensure that every young Australian has the opportunity to further their education, not to put up roadblocks to them or to TAFE. Our best and brightest lecturers and teachers should be available for young Tasmanians.
Let's be very clear: because of the Liberal cuts to TAFE, people are suffering needlessly. Students at TasTAFE are being forced to put their lives on hold, with courses being cancelled with no prior warning. Further to this, teachers are being worked to the bone. They're stressed and, ultimately, what they're doing now is resigning. People should not be treated like this and therefore they're looking for other opportunities. That leaves our young Tasmanians without the support that they need to get started in their careers. The fact that information technology students were in the middle of a course when it was cancelled is extraordinary! It's an indictment of TasTAFE under the Liberals.
Mr Morrison has told the Australian people that what we all need is more love. Of course, I want more love; I'm sure everyone in the gallery and everyone in this chamber would like to have more love. But the best way we can share that love around is to ensure that there's proper access for all young Australians, and Australians of all ages, to continue their education. Prime Minister, you have a responsibility. You made a commitment to the Australian people when you were elected. It's about time you stood up and invested in education in this country.
These students who have had their lives put on hold are under stress that they don't need to be under. One student said: 'I had to have some lengthy conversations with Centrelink. It caused some trouble because they did not understand why I was still a student but wasn't going to classes.' That's the reality of the lack of interest in and lack of funding commitments to TAFE. Young people now have to deal with Centrelink wanting to know why they're not going to class, because all the information they gave Centrelink at the beginning of the year is longer relevant. And it is out of their hands completely. It's unacceptable.
There is a further concern with these bills. We don't want to see higher fees for students in this country. Currently, Australia's students pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD for a university education. This is not something any of us should be proud of. We on this side—and, I think, a good proportion of Australian people—think that if the Liberals had their way they would already have introduced $100,000 university degrees, as they wanted to do in the past two terms of their government. The Liberals have already forced students to start paying off HELP debts when they earn as little as $45,000—only $9,000 more than the minimum wage. This is happening when Australians are just getting established in the workforce and trying desperately to keep their head above water. They may even be trying to save for their own home. But, let's be honest, not many can afford to buy their first home on a wage of $45,000.
Labor understands that debt is a barrier to study, particularly for students from low-income families. Labor, instead of discouraging people, wants more people to take up the benefits of higher education, if that's something they wish to do. The decision of those opposite to effectively re-cap undergraduate places will devastate participation rates in higher education. The Mitchell Institute says that by 2031, because of the Liberals' reckless cuts, up to 235,000 Australians could be missing out on a university education. We should be ashamed of that. That would be devastating not just for the individuals and their families but, just as importantly, for our economy and society more broadly. Labor want to boost participation. We're committed to increasing equity and pathways for students to study at university. We, the Labor Party, are of the belief that there should be equality of opportunity. That is why we must support universities in Australia to do the job as well as they can and to be adequately funded to educate young minds—and the minds of all Australians—who want to have the option to go to university.
It's simply not fair that a student from the North Shore of Sydney is five times—five times!—more likely to go to university than a student from the west coast or the north-west coast of Tasmania is. Labor wants to see that change. It shouldn't matter where you live. It shouldn't matter what credit card you have access to. We should all have equal opportunity. Labor wants our students who have the ability and the desire to go on to university or to access TAFE to have that opportunity. That's the least that we can give young people. In contrast, though, the Liberals want to slam shut the doors of the universities to more than 200,000 Australians. Those people over there, who come into this chamber and talk about the great record that their Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has on education, ought to be honest with the Australian people. Own up to the fact that you've cut education. Own up to the fact that we have in Tasmania alone, let alone other regional areas of this country, too high unemployment rates for young people.
Five thousand jobs have been lost in Tasmania alone under this government. They want to privatise everything. They now want to privatise visa applications out to the public sector, so there are 2,000 more jobs around the country that are going to be lost. I've not heard one word from the Liberal Senate team for Tasmania talking about the 100 jobs that would be lost in Hobart if they privatise these services. They probably think 100 jobs are not many for Hobart or for a state like Tasmania, but that is a significant number of people, because it's not just the individual who loses their job; it's their family, it's their community and it affects our economy.
You can't sit back in your ivory towers and come in here and preach about your great track record around education and unemployment figures, because the reality is very different. The Australian people know that because they live with the consequences of it every single day. So we, in this chamber, will come in here, we will hold you accountable and we will put the facts on the table so that the Australian people know and understand what is really happening in our universities. They will know what the real issues are around youth unemployment, and I haven't even spoken about underemployment in this country, underemployment which is predominantly affecting middle-aged and older Australian men and women in this country. It's not good enough, and we've seen no leadership whatsoever from this government.
You never hear them talking about the benefits of training and education and getting older workers skilled and back into the workforce, because if they truly believed that they would be increasing the funding for TAFE in this country. If we look at the aged-care sector, it is facing a crisis because we don't have enough workers, we don't have universal training and we don't have universal registration of aged-care workers, but it's good enough for nurses to have a national register. My view has been for a very long time that there needs to be a national registration of workers in the aged-care sector. Hopefully, that will be a recommendation—I am sure it will be—out of the royal commission. This is a government who just doesn't care. They got elected without an agenda. They got elected without an agenda for education and doing something to inspire young people and to encourage older and mature age students to go on to university. Enough is enough! We will, at each and every opportunity, come into this chamber and put the real facts, and we will talk about what Labor would do and what we expect from this government. We will hold you accountable.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:28): Today, as we debate the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019, we see that we are essentially debating legislation designed to shift some of the modest costs of administering the Higher Education Loan Program to higher education providers themselves. Labor doesn't oppose this legislation due to the very small impact that it will have on the sector and, indeed, because the bills do not seek to pass these costs on to Australian students. But, while we are cautiously supportive, we will be monitoring the progression of these measures very closely and the ramifications that they could have on students, because you can't look at this particular legislation in isolation from the government's overall higher education and skills agenda—or lack of agenda, as I would frame it. This is a government that seems set on making life harder for those seeking an education in our nation. We shouldn't be a nation that will tolerate a situation where further costs are passed on to Australian students. This is not a value shared by those opposite. Since the election of the coalition to government in 2013, we've seen universities and students systematically and constantly under attack through the callous actions of this government. There were your initial attempts to create a system of full $100,000 degrees, and the government also forced students to begin paying off their HELP debts once they began earning just $45,000 a year.
I highlight to the chamber today that the $45,000 a year at which you start paying back this debt is only $9,000 more than the minimum wage. When Australian students work hard for many years, often working multiple jobs to support themselves—and they do that to earn themselves a qualification and a skill in the field that they are interested in—it is galling that they're forced to start repaying their HELP loan for their degree just as they're starting out in a new industry and trying to establish themselves in what can be a very competitive workforce. And it should be of no surprise to those in this chamber that there are many Australians who find the idea of a HELP loan a disincentive to undertaking study at all.
It's not just Australians who deserve a good income from having a good education and from putting in that time. We need, as a nation, to support Australians getting these qualifications because we need their skills. The economy absolutely demands that. This kind of debt can be a significant barrier to study for students from lower income families, and paying that back while on a lower income can be seen to exacerbate that reality.
I was delighted during the 45th Parliament to serve as Labor's shadow assistant minister for universities. I know from that experience that, by and large, universities, peak bodies and other organisations have a strong commitment to supporting Australians in their education. They understand that Australia's economy should be a smart one, one that's well resourced, and that that resourcing of education is absolutely key to success. One of the things that Labor did in government back in 2008 was create the Education Investment Fund, a fund for the development of research infrastructure to provide refurbishment of TAFEs and universities. We've seen 71 projects worth $7 billion in new investment under that program, but this government has now tried three times to abolish this important fund. Again, you are seeking to hold the nation to ransom by saying, 'You can have your disaster mitigation, or you can have quality education infrastructure, but you can't have both,' expecting Australians to say: 'Oh, my goodness! We can't leave people without disaster relief.' Well, you would be the ones leaving them without disaster relief, because you will not prioritise the funding of that disaster relief without it being at the expense of infrastructure in our nation's education system. You should be completely called out on that fact.
This is just one of the many ways that you have been damaging our education system. The government tried to argue that universities are wealthy, asset-rich institutions and can make more provisions for their own needs. Well, from the universities that I have visited the demand for infrastructure is large and it's meeting real gaps for students' educational needs. We have in our nation also experienced, thanks to this government, a $2.2 billion cut out of our education system in a malicious attack. The government has re-capped undergraduate places, and this has locked thousands of students out of the opportunity of a university education.
So let me break this down into some numbers for you. Thousands of students in years 11 and 12 right now, working hard in school, deserve a spot that they have earned through the marks that they've got, but thousands of those students will not have an opportunity for higher education through university. Why? Because you capped university places back in 2000 and—I can't remember the year, but I know that over the course of the cap it is about 230,000 students nationwide that the system will not have grown by. That means there are 230,000 fewer places for Australian students by the time you go back not to a demand-driven system but just to allowing growth in the system according to population growth.
This is the wrong attitude. We need to be a country that is strong, that has a strong economy and that has decently paid jobs, and that is why we believe our top priority is an investment in education. You are severely limiting our capacity for economic growth with this agenda. We know that the opportunity to sustain growth in the long term across governments in our nation must be driven by investment in education and the capacity of our Australian citizens. Education is a nation-building exercise. When Labor brought in Australia's world renowned income-contingent-loan scheme in 1989, it was created because we believed, as we do now, that funding education is an investment into our nation's future prosperity. HECS was about expanding the number of university places so that we could be that kind of economy. But we can see now more than ever—not that those on the other side have ever tried to hide this—that the truth is that our people in our nation are not getting access to the education they deserve. This government is more concerned about the appearance of keeping the budget in surplus than about the future skilled workers of our great nation.
The kinds of trade-offs you're talking about—the nation-building capacity of access to higher education, of access to skills and TAFE, of quality infrastructure for our universities—are all stuff that we need to grow the economy. The idea that you can hold that to ransom and just cut it away because, you argue, if you don't cut it, you can't afford drought relief and disaster relief for our nation is patently absurd. We need to invest in education in our nation in order to be able to fund emergency responses, in order to be able to research how to respond to emergencies in our nation.
If participation rates in higher education and vocational training fall as the population increases, there will be fewer people of prime working age who can effectively participate in the labour market of the future, and this is my grave fear. We've had the Mitchell Institute state that, because of the Liberals' reckless cuts, up to 235,000 Australians are missing out on a university education. The long-term and rigorous gutting that the coalition have been putting our higher education sector through over their time in government is absolutely short-sighted and unfair. Labor believe in equal access to education. Every student who has the ability and who is prepared to work hard should have the opportunity to get a university or TAFE qualification. We currently have a skills shortage in Australia. It's key to my own shadow portfolio of manufacturing. It's across the board in the bricklaying, plumbing and electrical trades, with Australia having 150,000 fewer apprentices. We are growing more desperate for skilled workers, and that need will only grow into the future. The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship today is lower than it was a decade ago. And you can see that. Manufacturers in Australia are talking about the quality of the skills of their staff and the issues they are now confronting with not having an appropriately skilled workforce. There are more people dropping out of apprenticeships and traineeships than there are people finishing them. And a report from the Australian Industry Group states that 75 per cent of businesses surveyed are struggling to find the qualified workers they need. So what are the government doing to help us train the workers of the future? What have they done? They've cut federal support for TAFE and training by some $3 billion. They're locking Australians out of TAFE and training and they're holding Australia back from the prosperity that it deserves.
We want every student in our nation who has the ability and is prepared to work hard to have the opportunity of a quality education. We want to boost participation, increase equity and create more pathways for students to access university and TAFE. Currently, I'm sad to say, a young person in Sydney's North Shore is five times more likely to get a university education than a young person living in the Moreton Bay region of Queensland is. In my own state of Western Australia, a young person from the inner suburbs of Perth is around three times more likely to have a degree than a young person from Mandurah is. The electorate of Canning, where Mandurah is located, is full of bright and talented students. We fundamentally believe that the intellect and effort of these students should be rewarded. Whether or not they go to university or TAFE should not be determined by where they live or by their bank balance. Just 14.7 per cent of young people living in Mandurah have a bachelor's degree—less than half the national average. That's not just young people but people aged 25 to 34. And I have to say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that that difference is not made up by them having TAFE or other trade qualifications. They are, in general terms, less qualified, and that is an absolute shame and completely unacceptable.
We must do more and we must do better. We should not let distance and income be such a large barrier to young Australians accessing education. We owe it to Australians to make sure they can access excellent TAFE and excellent universities. However, this government seems to be intent on destroying both. As I said in my opening remarks, we cautiously support this bill, but let's be clear: the university sector has suffered under this government, with devastating impacts on young Australians and the economy at large.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:44): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019. I'll be clear from the outset: the Greens do not support these bills. These bills impose yet another levy on the higher education sector, which is already under pressure from round after round of funding cuts. The Greens are deeply concerned about the ongoing cuts to higher education. The proposed bills represent a worrying continuation of this government's larger pattern of defunding the higher education sector and shifting the costs of providing higher education away from the Commonwealth. These proposed charges must be considered within this context of underfunding and defunding of education. When the Liberal-National government froze Commonwealth funding for teaching and training, they effectively cut trillions of dollars of funding from the higher education sector.
The bills propose to shift the cost of administering HELP loans to higher education providers, who are already struggling under massive cuts to their budgets by the Liberal-National government. Some TAFEs will also be slugged with this needless tax at a time when they're already being destroyed by this government's neglect, lack of funding and a push to privatise.
This is part of an ongoing pattern of the Commonwealth shrinking and shirking its responsibility to fund the delivery and administration of higher education, which is actually our responsibility. Shifting costs of administering students loans to higher education providers is not only wrong in principle; it also further burdens the sector, which is already in strife on many fronts. It is our collective responsibility to fight back against every bit of funding taken away from higher education and to build a movement for meaningful funding increases that bring with them secure and permanent ongoing employment for university staff.
Several submissions to the inquiry into these bills highlighted that these charges will mean that higher education providers will be forced to divert resources away from teaching and learning, essential activities such as supporting equity outcomes and overall provision of a quality education for students. For too long, both—and I say both—Labor and Liberal governments have treated education as a piggy bank from which money can be drawn at whim. Every time you need to fill up government coffers, you attack universities and students. This is death by a thousand cuts, and it is shameful for Labor to side with this government today, which has cut millions of dollars from the higher education sector. Labor is hiding behind the Liberals, offering no opposition to these terrible bills. They claim to be a party that cares about higher education, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof will be in Hansard when Labor votes with the government to impose yet another levy, another tax on higher education providers. Just last week there was a Guardian headline, 'Labor must help coalition pass legislation even if it disappoints' with a big picture of Labor deputy leader Richard Marles. No! Labor, you need to join us in opposing this government, which destroys everything it touches.
Evidence provided by the majority of stakeholders to these two bills when the inquiry was held in the last parliament showed clearly the concerns that higher education providers have over yet another levy. Universities rightly pointed out in their submissions to the inquiry that higher education providers and student bodies already share the cost of administering the HELP scheme by providing a range of administrative and student services in order to ensure that HELP funding is administered property.
This legislation is also an attack on students. The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations stated in its submission:
Inevitably, cuts impact the delivery of teaching and research, the core functions of universities in Australia. Funding cuts will be passed onto undergraduate and postgraduate students, whether they are built into tuition costs for full fee-paying students, result in increased student to academic staff ratios, or lead higher education providers to otherwise reduce the "cost of delivery" of education.
The fact that the Liberals have revived these bills in the new parliament is a clear signal of the dangerous lack of vision for the future of our young people, for the future of our society. At a time when we should be looking to transform our higher education system, we have the Liberal-National coalition government decimating the higher education sector.
I've been involved in higher education for most of my adult life, and I'm still a proud card-carrying member of the NTEU. When I moved to Australia from Pakistan, now almost 27 years ago, the University of New South Wales was actually my first home, where I did my master's, where I taught environmental protection and sustainability and where I completed my PhD. I spent 14 years at UNSW, either as a student or as an academic. I have seen the sector dramatically change for the worse. I've seen universities forced to become businesses, where access to the privilege of education is being sold at a higher and higher price. The courses, the reputation, the buildings and the plush jobs are now all part and parcel of this rampant marketisation. First, funding has been structured to incentivise universities to adopt the methods and cultures of corporate institutions, replacing formerly collegial and democratic academic governance. If the Liberals have their way, universities will be funded only to the extent they are able to contribute to the profit-driven economy—as businesses, not as places for building the capacity for challenge, for critique, for invention and for intellectual growth, which is really what universities are all about.
It is our collective responsibility to fight back against every bit of funding taken away from higher education and push for increases that change universities to what they actually should be. We should be looking at how we can guarantee lifelong learning for everyone who wants to be in TAFE, training, education—whatever our community and our young people want. In these changing times, removing the burden of ever-increasing debt is the only way to transform our society into what we want it to be. This means free higher education—TAFE and university. It means increasing funding per student so staff can provide the best learning and teaching environment, it means supporting students by increasing youth allowance and it means providing job security to academics, researchers and staff.
Yet here we are extracting much-needed funds out of universities and doing it at a time of uncertainty, when the nature of work is changing. The future of many jobs is precarious at best. These are times when we should be looking at inspiring and creative solutions to the massive challenges of the climate crisis and inequality. These are times when we need to make it easier for our researchers to advise on the radical changes we need for a hopeful future. But we have the Liberals here, who are imposing yet another levy on higher education. The Greens will be opposing this shameful and backward move.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (12:53): I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019. Labor have indicated that we won't oppose these bills. This is the same position we took when bills to enact these measures were presented to the 45th Parliament. These bills introduce a range of small cost-recovery measures that the government proposed in the 2017-18 budget. The bills amend the Higher Education Support Act to introduce an application fee for higher education providers to offer FEE-HELP loans to Australian students. There will also be a small annual charge for higher education providers and universities to support the cost of administering the Higher Education Loan Program. In total, the measures in the legislation will deliver budget savings of $11.4 million over the forward estimates from 2019-20.
These bills are expected to have very little impact on the sector. However, we call upon the government to monitor the situation to ensure that these changes do not have a negative impact on students. It's simply not fair for any of the small additional charges in these bills to flow back to students through higher fees or higher charges for services. This would undermine equity in Australia's university system and be an wanted outcome of these changes. We're concerned about this possibility because Australian university students have faced nothing but attacks from this Liberal government during the last six years. Continued cuts to higher education funding, incorrect robo-debts sending students into poverty, attempts at fee deregulation and the shifting policy landscape have made life harder for Australian students. It's clear from the government's policy that they want to make it harder for Australian students to get a university education.
Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, we believe that funding education is an investment in our nation's future prosperity, not a cost burden. The Liberals and Nationals see university education as a privilege for an elite few and do not understand the power that education has to improve the lives of individuals and communities. Our universities and TAFE education sectors are struggling after six years of coalition government. It's time the current Prime Minister told us what his plans are to help more Australians gain a tertiary education. The government has cut $2.2 billion from universities and capped undergraduate university places. This means 200,000 people will miss out on the chance to go to university over the next decade. It's clear that the government does not care about Australian students.
Labor took to the last election a policy to undertake a once-in-a-generation national inquiry into post-secondary education, because we need to get this issue right rather than just stumble along on with whatever suggestions the government's mates come up with. This inquiry would have examined the current funding system and income-contingent loans scheme to ensure they are sustainable and are fair. In contrast, this government has no plan for higher education. Under this government, Australian students pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD for university education. Costs have blown out for students. We know that if the Liberals had had their way they would already have introduced $100,000 university degrees in this country. The people in my home state of Tasmania don't accept the plans for $100,000 degrees. It's simply too much. Any government member who thinks that $100,000 degrees are a fair outcome needs to reflect on how out of touch they are with Australia.
In Tasmania, students often don't follow a traditional pathway. In fact, according to the 2018 Good Universities Guide, 84 per cent of UTAS students do not come straight from school. They may have done some casual work while figuring out what they want to do or may be transitioning from one profession to another or may be mums returning to study. Indeed, we are seeing university education as an important pathway back to full-time employment for people who have previously worked in industries which have lower employment levels than in previous decades. But no matter their story, the choice of Tasmanian students to move on to study at UTAS is a major turning point in their life. It requires dedication and perhaps a reordering of their life, maybe arrangements for caring for children, rearranging how or when they work or a move closer to the university campus that best meets their needs. But when the government makes it harder to gain a place and makes it harder with higher fees or lower repayment thresholds it can discourage or prevent people from pursuing their dreams.
While we're aware that graduates often earn more than nongraduates, and so study delivers a personal benefit, the overall economy of Tasmania also benefits when there are more graduates. Skills and knowledge gained by graduates can create new economic opportunities that flow through to everyone. In the 2016 census just 16.4 per cent of Tasmanians had a bachelor-level or higher qualification, compared to 22 per cent nationally. Tasmania has a largely regional population, and overall rates of university graduation are lower in regional areas. Unfortunately, I think those opposite look at the personal benefit of education and not at the social benefit. Last year, the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers undertook an inquiry into the challenges facing our future workforce. A submission from the University of Technology Sydney to the inquiry outlined some of the societal benefits of increasing the level of university graduates. The submission said:
University graduates are increasingly critical for the whole Australian economy and workforce, particularly the knowledge economy that Australia needs to move towards. In 2014 Australian universities educated 1.3 million students and produced 300,000 skilled graduates and as a result are key economic powerhouses – universities directly contributed $25 billion to our GDP in 2013 and the skills of our graduates were worth $140 billion to the economy in 2014. The skills of our graduates will contribute more to Australia's innovation agenda than almost any other initiative.
It is crucial to note that universities are job creators. For every 1000 university graduates who enter the Australian workforce, 120 new jobs are created for people without university degrees.
The National Tertiary Education Union, in their submission, cautioned that the policies of this government were undermining the sector. Their submission states:
Current government policy and direction in higher and vocational education and research is alarmingly short-sighted, driven almost exclusively by the budget bottom-line with the most recent consequence being major cuts to public investment in tertiary education. This has led to a lack of policy coherency and indeed contradictory measures to the stated aims of developing a tertiary education system able to meet future workforce challenges.
… … …
There is a fundamental disjuncture between the significant structural change the Australian economy and labour market is undergoing and the direction of the Coalition government’s tertiary education policies.
Universities Australia also expressed disappointment with recent government policies in higher education. Their submission read:
Given the wide-ranging importance of higher education and research, UA is disappointed that recent governments have prioritised cuts to universities in the pursuit of Budget savings. There is no case for large cuts of the kind that recent governments have proposed.
So it's clear to me and to those on this side of the chamber that the government does not understand the importance of our universities. The government just sails blindly along, saying, 'Everything's all right,' when it's clear that things are getting worse and they're not doing anything to fix it.
While there has not been an inquiry into the bills we're debating today, when bills for these measures were introduced during the 45th Parliament, Labor referred them to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry. In particular, we wanted stakeholders to be properly consulted—something this government cannot be trusted to do. Time and time again, we see this government making policy changes without discussing what these changes are with the people who are affected by them. In the higher education sector, in particular, the Liberal government has made significant changes without considering the impacts that these changes will have on students, lecturers, universities and the overall sector.
Consultation is a key part of the public policy cycle, and an important one in ensuring the best possible policy outcomes. However, we're seeing the disastrous impacts on the higher education sector that this government's ill-thought-out policies have wrought. Labor senators provided the following additional comments to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report I mentioned earlier:
Since the election of the Government in 2013, universities and students have been under constant attack with cuts, attempts at fee deregulation, policy chaos and uncertainty. The 2017 MYEFO decisions to cut $2.2 billion from universities, effectively recap undergraduate places, and change the Higher Education Loan Program were reckless and unfair. Thousands of students will miss out on the opportunity of a university place because of the Government’s cuts and capping of places.
The government should be ashamed of these cuts. They're not in the interests of students, universities or, particularly, the nation as a whole. They have already forced students to start paying off HELP debts when they earn as little as $45,000, only $9,000 more than the minimum wage. Given the current housing crisis and higher rents, this additional impost on these low-income graduates has just made life unnecessarily harder.
Labor has said that this change forces thousands of students out of the opportunity for a university education and puts enormous pressure on other young people in having to repay their debts sooner—often at the same time as they're trying to start a family and buy a house, and when they have many other expenses. We on this side know that the debt is a barrier to study, particularly for students from low-income families. Unfortunately, there are many prospective students who look at the debt they could rack up at university and immediately give up on their dreams.
Before the election, Labor committed to return to the demand-driven funding system, to ensure three-year funding agreements, to fund more equity and pathway programs to encourage more students to go to university and to provide much-needed funding for infrastructure through our $300 million University Future Fund. Labor's positive policies would have seen around $10 billion in additional funding flow to universities over the next decade. We're proud that under the previous government we oversaw an increase of over 190,000 students. Labor is absolutely committed to the demand-driven system. Labor wants to boost participation. We're committed to increased equity and better pathways for students to study at university. It's simply not fair that a student on the North Shore of Sydney is much more likely to go to university than a student in Herdsmans Cove or Acton in Tasmania. We want to see greater participation in higher education in Australia. Labor wants to give every student who has the ability and who is prepared to work hard the opportunity of a university education. In contrast, the Liberals want to slam the door to university shut on more than 200,000 Australians.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:05): I thank those senators who have contributed to this debate on the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019. As senators have noted, these bills seek to provide for a process where higher education providers who are seeking approval under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will face an annual cost recovery charge in relation to the administration arrangements around HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP assistance under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This modest annual charge will partially recover from higher education providers the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs. These programs, of course, are essential in terms of the support that they provide to Australian students to access higher education opportunities without facing any upfront fees.
The measures, as we've outlined, are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework, linking the cost of providing regulatory services to higher education providers that benefit from having access to the Commonwealth balance sheet to provide low-cost, income-contingent student loans on terms that would not be available under any commercial financing arrangements. Clearly, access to these loans is not only of benefit and essential to the equity of higher education students but also of significant benefit to higher education providers in terms of their attractiveness as a destination for students. The measures will also raise awareness in the higher education sector of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth for the regulatory arrangements of these programs.
I thank members for their contributions during the debate and the opposition for their indication that they will be supporting passage of these bills, and I thank them for the ongoing bipartisan support shown to the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs. I commend the bills to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ): The question is that the bills, the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019, be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. [13:11]
(Acting Deputy President—Senator Kitching)
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ) (13:15): 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 BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:15): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:16): I rise to speak to two pieces of legislation, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019. These bills build on existing legislation of the same name from 2006 that regulates offshore carbon storage activities. These bills shift the oversight authority of offshore carbon storage from the responsible minister to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, also known as NOPSEMA. NOPSEMA is a highly regarded Commonwealth agency that already regulates and enforces offshore petroleum operations. It performs monitoring, assessment, data analysis and enforcement across more than 900 offshore wells and their operators. The opposition considers that NOPSEMA is the best placed agency to have oversight of offshore greenhouse gas storage.
This bill proposes a number of amendments to strengthen NOPSEMA's ability to monitor, investigate and enforce breaches of offshore oil and gas operations, with the intention of keeping workers and the environment safe and healthy. Currently, offshore petroleum activities cannot commence unless NOPSEMA has accepted detailed risk management plans that document and demonstrate how an organisation will manage the risks to health and safety and the environmental risks to as low as reasonably practical.
As well as being a regulator of offshore petroleum activities, NOPSEMA is also a developer of safety and environmental benchmarks, and it undertakes an educational role in the offshore energy sector. NOPSEMA has an enforcement function and can pursue remedies that include offence provisions, civil penalties and enforceable undertakings. The monitoring and inspection role of NOPSEMA officers includes both warrant and warrant-free searches and inspections. Much of NOPSEMA's role occurs behind the scenes working with industry, and the authority has a team of scientists and engineers. A lot of their work entails detailed examination of data that has been provided to them by operators.
Let's look at the bills in detail. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 amends the legislation of the same name from 2006 which I mentioned earlier. It covers the well management and environmental management of offshore greenhouse gas storage operators and shifts oversight authority from the minister to NOPSEMA. The amendments bill strengthens NOPSEMA's role as it moves to regulate greenhouse gas storage. The bill reverses the burden of proof in specific incidents, requiring that the storage operators show that they do not do unlawful acts, rather than NOPSEMA having to prove it. Such a reversal is justified because in some cases the storage operator is the only party that could know what has actually occurred to produce a dangerous incident.
Secondly, the amendments bill empowers NOPSEMA to conduct monitoring activities on storage operators without a warrant. Labor believes this amendment will significantly increase the safety of workers and improve the environmental footprint. Thirdly, the amendments bill allows NOPSEMA to issue enforceable undertakings to offshore carbon storage operators, but not when the incident in question has resulted in a fatality or when the operator has a track record of incidents.
The amendments bill fixes up a taxation oversight. The frontier area tax scheme allows a petroleum explorer to claim a 150 per cent deduction on exploration expenditure in frontier areas under the PRRT. Four frontier areas were not included in 2005, and this amendment fixes the oversight retrospectively, with no revenue implications—very important. NOPSEMA is a cost-recovery funded agency. The regulatory levies bill establishes a schedule of levies to be paid by the offshore greenhouse gas storage operators.
Fundamentally, these bills help ensure that Australia has the safest and most environmentally responsible methods for pursuing carbon capture and storage in our offshore oil and gas fields. Carbon storage operates by taking carbon dioxide from industrial processes and pumping it deep underground into appropriate geology. The world's largest carbon storage projects take CO2 produced from power generation and LNG processing. This operation requires that carbon dioxide is compressed and then pumped under high pressures so it is injected into the geology. The sequestration site for the carbon dioxide can be up to two kilometres below the seabed. Typically the best formations for this carbon storage task are areas which have already been used for petroleum extraction.
Carbon capture and storage is recognised by the International Energy Agency as a key technology for reducing national greenhouse gas emissions. According to the IEA, carbon capture and storage can remove up to 85 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. The IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario says that seven per cent of the required global cumulative emissions reductions to 2040 will come from carbon utilisation and storage. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, says that, without carbon capture and storage, the cost of achieving a two-degrees warming outcome by the end of the century increases by 138 per cent.
There are more than 40 carbon storage and utilisation project operating around the world. However, the biggest carbon storage projects are right here in Australia. The world's largest carbon capture and storage project is operating at an onshore site just off that magnificent part of Australia called the West, at Barrow Island—the Gorgon Project. I'm from Western Australia!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ): Thank you, Senator Sterle.
Senator STERLE: I just wanted to reiterate that! A joint venture between Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell, the project started injecting CO2 from the LNG trains in August. At full operation, it will sequester no less than four million tonnes of CO2 each year. The investment in this project is currently at US$2.5 billion.
In the next two years Australia will move its carbon storage efforts offshore, into the Gippsland Basin in the Bass Strait. The CarbonNet Project will be the largest carbon storage project in the world. It will store five million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, taking CO2 extracted from the Latrobe Valley power stations and piping it offshore, where it will be injected beneath the seabed.
As we gear up for offshore carbon storage projects, we need the best environmental and workplace safety protections. We support these offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage bills because they recognise an exciting and important form of future emissions reduction and they also acknowledge the appropriate agency to oversee these operations.
The operators of carbon storage use infrastructure similar to that used for petroleum extraction. It is not a risk-free activity, and, when carbon is stored in geology beneath the seabed, the highest standards of environmental protection and operational safety are required. In Australia, we have the offshore geology that is suited to carbon capture and storage, and, in NOPSEMA, we have the agency that will ensure this activity is performed in a way that keeps our environment clean and, even more importantly, our workers safe. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:25): It's $324 billion and growing every year: that's the pile of accumulated tax credits that the gas industry is sitting on and that's why these multinational behemoths that are polluting our atmosphere and contributing to a climate emergency won't pay tax for a decade or more. Think about that figure for a moment—that staggering figure: 17.5 per cent of our entire country's GDP in avoided taxes for the sole benefit of the gas industry to use over the coming decades. These companies get to slowly work through $324 billion of taxable profits before they have to pay tax. Whatever of these tax credits a company doesn't use in a year uplifts by 15 per cent, plus the bond rate. That's a greater rate of return than Sydney's property market or the bitcoin bubble. Think about it and ask yourself, 'Why on earth do these companies get such generous tax treatment?'
As usual, the answer is, 'Follow the money.' The oil and gas industry have now donated $2.7 million to the Liberal Party and $2 million to the Labor Party since 2012. Every retired Labor or Liberal energy minister has worked for a gas company. That's pretty remarkable when you think about it—retired Labor and Liberal energy ministers all working for the gas companies. The former Minister for Trade, Craig Emerson, wrote an op-ed for The Australian Financial Review just last week, saying how gas is crucial for our energy transition. Of course, the online version didn't disclose that his clients are AGL and Santos.
Tax avoidance, lobbying and destroying our environment: the gas industry has it all—the trifecta. They perfectly encapsulate Australia's current political system: get rich quick, pollute the planet, destroy the climate and who gives a stuff about anything else. The carbon emissions from the gas industry have ballooned by 62 per cent in a decade. In fact, the damage that they have contributed to our climate is so big that the gas industry has completely wiped out all the gains from reaching 23 per cent renewable energy in recent years.
Even when we look at the government's own talking points, which we were privy to yesterday, they had the honesty to acknowledge that if it weren't for the gas industry our emissions wouldn't be going up. So there we have it: on the one hand, it's a good thing that we're seeing an increase in the renewable energy sector—23 per cent as a proportion of our energy system. But every gain that we make by replacing dirty energy with renewable energy is wiped out because of the contribution that gas makes to climate pollution.
I note that the industry is engaged in a huge PR campaign. In fact, I happened to take my kids to the show a week or two ago, and there on the big screen was a big advertisement for how important gas is to the economy. You see it on TV now and you see it through social media. But despite the best efforts of the gas industry—despite their greenwash and despite the PR campaign that they're engaged in—there is no hiding this fact: gas is a dirty fossil fuel that contributes to climate damage.
We understand that at the moment there are people who have no choice but to use gas. But the bottom line is that gas, like coal, has no long-term future if we're going to be able to live in a safe and stable climate. Look at the mining of gas: it leaks methane when it's fracked on land or extracted offshore—leaks that get in transport pipelines. It uses huge amounts of energy to freeze it to minus 161 degrees to turn it into a liquid, then more emissions are burnt through transport overseas on ships, and then of course there's the use of the fuel as it's intended. When it's burnt, there are more emissions. Don't be fooled: gas is a dirty, dirty energy source, and part of the transition we need to make is not just from coal but from both coal and gas, which are hugely greenhouse intensive and are contributing to the climate crisis we're now in. You'd think, given that, that the government would be doing what it could to speed the transition away from gas to renewable energy. Instead, we see a government continuing to subsidise the gas industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
That's why my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson is going to move an amendment that I'd implore all members of the crossbench to support. I'm not holding my breath for the Liberal and Labor parties, because they want to see those donations coming in, but we implore at least the crossbench to make a clear statement that this free ride has to stop. It's interesting, isn't it? You hear the coalition talk about the subsidies for renewable energy, but you never hear them talk about the massive subsidies to the coal and gas industries. Chevron's given far more in donations to either one of the major parties than they've paid in tax to the ATO. Woodside has given $220,000 a year to each of the major parties.
Our amendment's a modest one. It simply removes the section that would backdate the generous tax credits to a handful of recent gas projects for which there is some legal uncertainty about whether they're eligible for the tax rort that's currently in place. Of course, the amendment doesn't go anywhere near what needs to be done to make these gas giants pay tax in the next decade, but at least it will stop further damage to the tax base. We understand that at the moment there are some industries that need gas and there aren't alternative options available, but that technology is coming. We understand that many households still are reliant on gas; we get that. But unless we start planning for the future and driving the transition that needs to happen, we have no hope of reducing pollution and ensuring that we hand over a safe and liveable climate to future generations.
So I hope we have the support for this amendment. I hope that at some time in the future we will see a ban on political donations in this country—something the Greens have campaigned on for many decades. And I hope industries like the coal and gas industries will finally start to pay their fair share for exploiting Australian resources that belong to each and every one of us. That's the challenge for this government; it is the challenge for future governments. As I said, I don't expect either the government or the opposition to move while the rivers of gold keep flowing, but that is the challenge for those of us in this place: to ensure that the pressure stays on. This amendment is a sensible way of ensuring that they start paying their fair share.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:34): The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 gives me an opportunity today to say what I didn't get to say in the last day of the 45th Parliament. For senators who were here for the 45th Parliament, you may remember that on the very last sitting day the Senate jammed through this government's pithy changes to the petroleum resource rent tax, commonly known as the PRRT. Under a guillotine—and that is what it was—the government's scant changes to the PRRT were passed without debate. Obviously this was extremely disappointing to myself and to my Greens colleagues and no doubt would have been disappointing to a number of senators who have worked in this chamber for a number of years. The Greens initiated a Senate inquiry into the changes to the petroleum resource rent tax. At the time I called it the 'petroleum rort rent tax', because that is what it is: the biggest rort in the Australian tax system. Some of the biggest polluters and some of the wealthiest companies on this planet with some of the highest returns on shareholder funds have avoided paying tax on the resources that are owned by the Australian people. Why have they avoided paying tax for those resources? Because the system was deliberately set up that way to enable them to do this.
While we've all sat through numerous Senate inquiries and significant legislation trying to crack down on multinational tax avoidance—and I commend the government, the Labor Party and the crossbench senators for the combined focus and effort in this place to get results—how is it that this sector, this industry, gets away with this time and time again? I didn't get to put forward the details of the Greens amendments to try to fix the petroleum rort rent tax—amendments that, by the way, were reflected in recommendations from the Senate inquiry into how to properly fix this tax to get a fair return for the Australian people on the resources that they own. I think they would have gone a reasonable way towards addressing this deficiency in our tax system and I think this is something the Australian people would have supported. They have to pay their fair share of tax and they just don't get how some of the biggest polluters and biggest companies on the planet can avoid paying their tax.
Senator Di Natale mentioned earlier that it is not just the PRRT where they have been able to accumulate $380 billion in deferred taxes to the Australian people and to the Australian government; a number of these companies were also singled out for attention by senators in this chamber for not paying any tax at all. I was very encouraged that the Australian Taxation Office took on Chevron and other big polluters and forced them to pay at least some of the tax they owed to the Australian people. You can draw your own conclusions as to why this industry seems to be so sacrosanct. Why is it that the oil and gas industry gets away with it time and time again?
Senator Canavan: Take them to court then.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I'll take that interjection, Senator Canavan, through you, Chair. It's probably because they're big donors to the Labor and Liberal parties, especially to the LNP. It's probably because former senior ministers from the Labor and Liberal parties walk these corridors, the corridors of power, and get influence in this building, and we get pay for play. That's how it works in this system. Democracy might have a lot of good things going for it, Senator Canavan, but it certainly can't control rampant capitalism, because, when you're in the pocket of big business, it is highly unlikely that you are going to do what's in the public good; you're going to look after your own self-interest. We see it happen time and time again in this place.
Did you know, Senator Canavan—through you, Chair—that in 1965 the US government officially raised the issue of climate change as being a threat to humanity? The oil and gas companies themselves in 1981 put out communications saying that we were running out of time for action on climate change, yet they have contributed billions of dollars to so-called think tanks and research institutions to sow doubt about climate action.
We have a situation where 20 of the biggest polluters on this planet—oil and gas companies—account for 35 per cent of global emissions, and we give those same companies a tax holiday. And if the Greens and the Labor Party had kept the carbon price in place—as hard as we fought for it—they would at least be paying for some of their pollution. But this Liberal government comes in and rips up the gold standard on international action on climate—the Clean Energy Package—and gives them another leg up, as if they needed it—another way of avoiding paying tax.
Every Australian would agree that the petroleum resource rent tax should be a tax that ensures that the public get a fair share of the profits that multinational oil and gas companies are making from being given the privilege of accessing Australian resources. That's what this is. The PRRT was designed over 30 years ago, essentially for the oil, gas and condensate industry—not for the massive booms we have seen in LNG. It is not fit for purpose. And all we have in terms of changes from this government is some tweaking around the edges. It has become a joke.
At last count, from last estimates—and we will be looking forward to getting an update at this estimates—it was $324 billion in IOUs to the Australian people. And that is growing, on average, at $40 billion per annum. That could pay for our Gonski package to fully fund higher education in this country. It could pay for dental care to be part of Medicare. There are so many things we could spend $40 billion on if these big companies, who can afford to pay their fair share, actually paid this tax. If we fixed the system, a rigged system deliberately set up to advantage big companies, we would have the money that we need to pay for infrastructure, hospitals and schools. This is against annual tax receipts of a measly $1 billion per annum from the PRRT. I will say that again. There is $40 billion in deferred tax credits, deferred tax payments to the Australian people, on a revenue of about $1 billion a year that they actually pay.
On these trends, it will be well into the next century, the 22nd century, before the Aussie people are square with big oil and gas—if ever. What a joke. We in this building could fix it if we just had the guts to stand up to big multinational corporations. So I plan to move an amendment today to assist the government in their pursuit of a surplus. I will put forward a number of amendments—bite-sized amendments rather than the full overhaul of the PRRT that is actually needed that would have ensured that multinational oil and gas companies that are profiting from public resources share just a little more of that profit with the public who own these resources.
I want to provide a quick summary of the amendments proposed by the Greens to the previous bill. We would establish uniform uplift rates to carry forward expenditure at the long-term bond rate of five per cent for the first 10 years and the long-term bond rate after 10 years. This is the new uplift regime established by the government but only for new projects. As a result, the tax bill of $324 billion for oil and gas companies will keep ballooning. Another amendment I would have liked to put up at the end of the last parliament would require companies to report deductible expenditure from the commencement of a project, irrespective of whether the project is generating income. This would address the problem of companies accumulating deductible expenditures during exploration, without the ATO being made aware of the size of potential future deductible expenditure until the company reports to the ATO when the project starts to record an income.
A third amendment I would have put up ends the transferability of exploration expenditure to counter the problem of companies transferring deductible exploration expenditure from onshore projects to offshore projects. Another amendment: I would have required companies to deduct outstanding carry-forward expenditure in the order of the size of the uplift rate. Currently, companies do the opposite so as to maximise their outstanding carry-forward expenditure and minimise their tax paid. This practice also results in the expenditure that is incurred first from exploration often being deducted last. But, alas, the government and the opposition are more interested in being nice to multinational oil and gas companies than they are in ensuring the integrity of the tax system or in ensuring public benefits.
With this bill, today this parliament is considering watering down the PRRT even further. Here is how the minister's office has explained it. Owing to a recently discovered failure in 2005, four exploration permits were awarded over areas promoted as frontier areas in 2005 that were not validly designated as frontier areas. To remove any doubt about the entitlement of relevant title holders to claim uplifted petroleum resource rent tax deductions under the scheme, it is proposed to amend the act to retrospectively designate the four areas that were not formally designated frontier areas in 2005 as frontier areas. In other words, the scope of eligible deductions under the PRRT is going to increase. Explorations conducted in frontier areas are to receive a 150 per cent premium on eligible PRRT deductions. As if $324 billion worth of tax credits isn't enough, this bill is making sure that a decision made 15 years ago falls in favour, again, of big oil and gas companies.
Our amendment today, senators, is modest. It simply removes the section that would backdate the generous tax credits to a handful of recent gas projects that have some legal uncertainty about whether they are eligible for the tax rort that is currently in place. Now, I believe, as you can probably guess, that this doesn't go anywhere near close enough to the changes that we need to make to this tax system. This will barely add an extra cent to the money that the Australian people should be owed if these companies were forced to pay the tax now—for example, by putting a floor rate on the PRRT so that companies have to pay an annual tax regardless.
I'll speak more about my amendment in the committee stage, but I just want to wrap up by saying that this is an issue that my party has been fighting for for at least the last five years to try to fix this tax rort. Not only do these companies not pay the petroleum resource rent tax that's owed to the Australian people, because of a system deliberately designed to give them a free kick in front of goals; but, when I asked Dr Craig Emerson, the architect of this tax scheme, directly in the Senate inquiry in Sydney why we couldn't fix the system, why we couldn't remove the 15 per cent per annum exploration uplift rates, why we couldn't put a floor—
Senator Canavan: We've done that.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Yes, you did do that, but you still kept it at a very generous five per cent, Senator Canavan, including for uplift on operating expenses, which was entirely unnecessary. Why should you transfer the risky activities of these companies onto the Australian taxpayer or onto the Australian public? I asked Dr Emerson this point, and he said, 'You could change it, Senator, but it would introduce sovereign risk'—the old sovereign risk bogey again, as though that's somehow going to influence future investment in this country. We're talking about trillions of dollars of investment already, and the reason we're getting this investment is this overly generous tax system.
Now, I don't want to see Equinor, a Norwegian company, going out and exploring the pristine Great Australian Bight. If they find world-class reserves of oil and gas there, they're going to turn South Australia into another North West Shelf. Apart from the endless pursuit of profits that this industry is addicted to, they are doing that because of this tax system. This generous tax system allows them to write-off all those exploration expenses, uplift them at generous rates and use them against future profits. Those liabilities will never be paid to the Australian people.
I don't want to see a pristine body of water turned into another giant oil and gas field. It's a time of climate crisis. It's a time in history to be changing the way we do business. It's a time to stand up and say, 'Business as usual is not an option,' whether it's dealing with our tax system and changing the tax system the way we need to, whether it's pricing pollution, whether it's transitioning our economy to renewable energy, whether it's standing up and opposing all new offshore oil and gas exploration in this country or whether it's looking after future generations by acting on emissions and sending the strongest possible signal to these companies that their business model is defunct.
In a future of acting on climate there will be no more room for multi-trillion dollar oil and gas wells and developments off our coasts. It's high time we moved on. It's high time we act on emissions and we make the leadership decisions in this chamber and the other place to rapidly transition this country. This is why people are protesting. This is why people are rising in Melbourne, in Brisbane, in Sydney, in Perth, in Hobart, in Launceston and in Adelaide. They're standing up because we aren't making those decisions. We aren't showing the leadership on transition. I would have thought that the PRRT was a no-brainer—making changes to a tax system that at least forces some of the biggest, wealthiest companies on this planet to pay their fair share. They've got out of paying $324 billion in tax to the Australian people. Think about that just for a moment. Think about how much money that is and what that could be used for. This is a small first step—not giving these companies more deductions.
I would urge senators to consider that—indeed, and this was thoroughly explored by our Senate inquiry and you might want to pay particular attention to this one, Senator Canavan—this is the tail wagging the dog of the oil and gas industry in this country and it is deliberately designed to be so generous to entice and to incentivise companies to come in their endless exploration of dirty fossil fuels that they burn that pollute the planet, that warm the planet, that kill our oceans, that cause bushfires and that condemns future generations of Australians. It's all tied in to this tax system. We need to change it. I am very passionate about this issue, and I will continue to fight, with my colleagues, to change this tax system to fix this petroleum resource rort in Australia.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:53): I want to thank senators for their contributions to these amendments. It is some very important legislation on our books. It's the legislation that provides the oversight and regulation of activities in our offshore areas, primarily oil and gas development in those areas. Obviously, they're activities that require a substantial amount of regulation and, as the responsible minister, I take the responsibility to ensure that we have robust regulation of our environment and the safety of workers in those environments very seriously. These amendments today are quite simple. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 will transfer regulatory oversite for offshore greenhouse gas storage environmental management and well operations from the responsible Commonwealth minister—that is, myself—to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA.
The amendment in the miscellaneous amendments bill will also 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 bill further amends the act to introduce enforceable undertakings. Most of these measures are in response to some clear issues in the current legislation. The transfer of responsibilities aligns the regulation of other activities in their offshore areas with those that relate to offshore oil and gas activities.
The bill also makes some technical amendments to the act to futureproof specific references and provisions of the act to regulations made under the act. The Offshore Petroleum Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019 amends the Offshore Petroleum Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 as a consequence of the related amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.
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 costs 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 as well.
In my brief time before question time, I thought I should respond to some of the contributions from the senators from the Greens political party first. The accusations that somehow the government is not appropriately enforcing taxation regulations on oil and gas producers are completely without merit. And, indeed, Senator Whish-Wilson at multiple points of his contribution contradicted himself on this very point, because as he did admit—sometimes to interjections from myself—the government has in fact strengthened our taxation laws in this area, the petroleum resource rent tax. There is a quite generous uplift rate for exploration. We did that one retrospectively, notwithstanding the issues that Senator Whish-Wilson made.
We've also put time limits on expenditure uplifts for non-exploration related expenditure. Although, admittedly those are running prospectively to keep the integrity of our system in place. As Senator Whish-Wilson also admitted they have taken the likes of Chevron, and the Taxation Office are pursuing others cases against companies in the resources space and they have been successful at recovering hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of the Australian taxpayer.
The fundamental point here is there is a distinction between the government and the Greens political party. We do not run or regulate our oil and gas sector to maximise tax revenues for the Australian people We run and regulate our oil and gas industry, like other industries, to provide the maximum benefit to the Australian people. Yes, tax revenues are part of the benefit but it is not the only benefit. The benefits include the jobs that hundreds of thousands of Australians have in the resource sector. The benefits include the economic and national development that these sectors contribute to. And, yes, the benefits also include the use of these resources both here domestically and often in overseas countries to help their economic development needs. That's what we run this sector for and that's the best way to do it to make sure it benefits most Australian people.
I also want point out the fundamental hypocrisy here of the Australian Greens. Senator Di Natale, you say: 'Gas has got to end. We've got to end the use of gas and oil and all these terrible products.' Meanwhile out the front this morning the Greens were at the front of a hot air balloon that they fired up with a nice big flare and floated into the sky to declare a climate emergency. We have been hearing from the Greens that apparently we are compromised by our donations from the fossil fuel sector. I can only conclude from the illogical and inconsistent behaviour we have seen from the Australian Greens in the last few months that they must be taking donations from the fossil fuel sector. How else can you explain this behaviour? How else can you explain that someone would logically campaign against oil and gas using a gas-fired hot air balloon? It makes no sense whatsoever. And not only that, that hot air balloon out there is not just fired by gas; the coating on it is made from nylon and dacron. They are fossil fuel polymers—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator CANAVAN: I'll come to you, Senator Wong. You guys aren't much better, because today I heard you've declared a climate emergency too. There is all this talk from the Australian Labor Party about how they now support the coal industry. They support workers. No, they are lining up behind the likes of Extinction Rebellion out the front. They are lining up against these people who are stopping people from going about their business. They are lining up with people who want to end the coal industry and put thousands of Australians out of a job. That is the Australian Labor Party. They're not about making jobs, creating jobs or supporting jobs. They're about putting people out of a job. They are combined with the Greens here today, with these protesters, whereas on this side we're standing up for our economy, standing up for jobs and standing up to make sure Australians can have a prosperous future for themselves and their families.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Employment
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Payne. How has this government managed to oversee a skills shortage and wage stagnation at the same time?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:00): I thank Mr Farrell—Senator Farrell—very much for his note. Sorry to demote you, Senator Farrell; I didn't mean to do that! I think it's important to note that, as a government, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that Australians have the right skills for the workforce of today and, importantly, the workforce of the future. We know that it is necessary to ensure that our VET sector we can deliver those skills and is responsive to the needs of employers, of workers and of students. In the current financial year, we're investing over $3 billion in VET. That investment is broken up by $1½ billion—
Senator Ayres: They're the wrong notes!
Senator PAYNE: They're not the wrong notes, because if you had listened to the esteemed senator's question about the skills, then you would know that is exactly what he asked. So where are we investing? We're investing in the states and territories through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development's specific purpose payments. We're investing in the Skilling Australians Fund—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne! I have Senator Watt on a point of order.
Senator Watt: On relevance—the minister has not addressed the question whatsoever, which is: how have they managed to oversee skills shortages and wage stagnation at the same time? That is quite an achievement, and we're very interested in the answer.
Senator Cormann: On the point of order, I don't think that points of order are appropriately used if it's to mislead the Senate. If Senator Watt had listened yesterday, he would know that real wages growth is higher than it was under Labor, and it's higher than it has been over the last 20 years.
The PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator Cormann. That is not a point of order. I remind all senators that a point of order on direct relevance is not an opportunity to simply restate the question.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, can I finish what I've got to say, and then I'll call you. It is not simply an opportunity for that. Please, I ask that a point be made on why the answer is allegedly not directly relevant rather than simply restating the question.
Senator Wong: We have taken note of your exhortation not to simply repeat the question, but for the purposes of articulating a direct relevance point it is necessary to reference the question. Senator Watt didn't simply reference the fact that the subject matter—that is, skill shortages and wage stagnation at the same time—was not a matter that the minister had gone to.
The PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I'm listening carefully to the minister. I believe the material she is dealing with is directly related to the question. It may not be the answer in the form, the type or the substance of that sought by those asking it, but I think it is directly relevant. There are supplementary questions and a time to debate it after question time.
Senator PAYNE: I am absolutely happy to concede that my error in commencing my answer was not to say that I reject the premise of the question from Senator Farrell, but it was very nice of Senator Watt to help Senator Farrell with his remarks. Most importantly, as I was indicating about our $3 billion investment in VET, it includes the national agreement, the Skilling Australians Fund and our own skills program—including employer incentives and support for Australian apprenticeships—and the list goes on. Most importantly, I don't intend to take a lecture on skills from those opposite, because we know that the decline in apprenticeship commencements began under the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. We know that the greatest fall in apprentice numbers on record occurred in 2012-13, when the number of apprenticeship commencements fell by 85,000 in a single year. Why did that fall happen? I'll tell you in a moment. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:04): I do have a supplementary question. Is annual wages growth now better or worse than when this government came to office?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:04): Let me be quite clear. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, has said:
The strong employment growth over the past year or so has led to a pick-up in wages growth in the private sector …
And he indicated that real wages grew by 0.7 per cent through the year to the June quarter—above the 20-year average of 0.6 per cent and above the rate of 0.4 per cent through the year of growth when Labor left office.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have Senator Watt on a point of order, Senator Payne.
Senator Watt: Okay, she finally got there. I was going to say that relevance—
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Please let me hear Senator Watt. Order on my right. Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: The minister finally got there. My point of order was on relevance. The question was a comparison to when the government first came to office, and we haven't heard anything about that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on the point of order.
Senator Cormann: That was a frivolous point of order by Senator Watt. The minister was, clearly, directly relevant to the question asked—directly relevant.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I will take your submission.
Senator Wong: Thank you. On, I think, the leader of the government's point of order—who seems to now simply be dismissing every point of order that the opposition has—there is something in the standing orders called direct relevance. If the government doesn't want points of orders on it, perhaps their ministers could be directly relevant to the question.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order raised by Senator Watt, conceding his opening statement, I do, however, believe that the minister, by talking about wages growth, was directly relevant to the question. Again, I ask senators—I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. If the minister's talking about wages growth, in the context that she was, I believe that is directly relevant to the question. Senator Payne.
Senator PAYNE: Thank you very much. I was saying that real wages grew by 0.7 per cent through the year to the June quarter. It was above the 20-year average of 0.6 per cent, above the rate of 0.4 per cent through the year of growth when Labor left office. Indeed, average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults rose by 3.1 per cent over the past year, which is the strongest growth in six years.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator PAYNE: We know that the opportunity to respond to the question is somewhat limited by a pale imitation of former senator Doug Cameron sitting on the other side—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne! Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: Mr President, Senator Watt—I could invite the minister to withdraw. I would make the point that this minister has a habit, when she's under pressure, of going personal. Grow up; you're the foreign minister. Grow up! A pale imitation.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, please. I will call Senator Cormann.
Senator Cormann: Senator Wong is again misleading—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I can't even hear Senator Cormann, which is truly spectacular given his voice and how close I am to him. Senator Cormann.
Senator Cormann: Senator Wong is clearly misleading the Senate. That was a strong and very effective answer the minister gave, which was directly relevant to the question asked.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! First of all, I'm going to rule on the point that Senator Wong made. If senators don't like banter across the chamber, they shouldn't start it by interjecting. I might say, neither the former senator referred to nor the one currently referred to, I think, took it as an insult. I will now move to Senator Farrell's final supplementary question.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:08): Thank you, Mr President. I do have a further supplementary question. Given the Reserve Bank of Australia says, 'Wages growth has been abnormally weak,' and 'lower than average across all industries and states', why does the government continue to refuse to reverse cuts to penalty rates?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:08): I'm not sure that Senator Farrell heard my previous quote of governor Phil Lowe, who said:
The strong employment growth over the past year or so has led to a pick-up in wages growth in the private sector …
I do think it is important to quote the Governor of the Reserve Bank accurately.
What I won't also take, Mr President, is a lecture from those opposite on the economy, because we know that as a result of our economic plan, as a result of our budget management, we're going to be able to return the budget to balance and into surplus for the first time in 11 years. Those opposite would not be familiar with that concept. I understand that. But we also are very, very cognisant of the fact that there are significant headwinds, that the economies the world over are facing challenges. We are being prudent and careful in our management of the economy, led by the Treasurer and led by the finance minister, and Australians are looking forward with the opportunities that are ahead—including job creation, which is, of course, a key fundamental of our economic plan and our record.
Mining
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (14:09): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Can the minister outline how the Liberal-National government is building resilience by supporting the development of Australia's critical-mineral and rare-earth industries, and what would this mean for my home state of Western Australia?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:09): I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question and I recognise his strong support of the mining industry, particularly in his great state of Western Australia. We have a fantastic resources industry in this nation, a lot of it in Western Australia, and we have huge opportunities in the future in critical minerals and rare earths, as Senator O'Sullivan outlined. What are critical minerals? They are the minerals that are essential to the development of the modern economy. They are in many of the things that we feel and touch almost every day and that are changing our lives almost every day. Every smartphone has an enormous number of critical minerals, a lot of defence technologies have them, and renewable energy, too, has lots of rare earths and critical minerals. So, if you do not support the mining industry, you are not supporting a modern economy. If you do not support the mining industry, you do not support renewable energy.
What are we doing, in light of this massive opportunity for our nation? Earlier this year the Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister Birmingham, and I released the government's strategy to develop our critical-minerals industry. It is focused around three areas. We are building the infrastructure we need to connect up to some of these new mining opportunities, which are often away from other economic developments or other economic activity. We are building roads, like Karratha-Tom Price Road, to open up opportunities in Senator O'Sullivan's part of the world, as well as lots of other investment. We are investing in innovation. We have put forward $25 million to establish a future batteries cooperative research centre, which will particularly look at the minerals in the battery sector—lithium, nickel and cobalt—and will support not just the development of the mining opportunities in those but also the downstream value-adding opportunities for Australia. We are also seeking to attract investment in this sector. We know that that is how to build our resources sector, to remain open to investment and attract those dollars so that we can get jobs going in our country.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (14:12): Australia holds some of the world's richest stocks of critical minerals and rare earths. What is the export potential of Australia's critical minerals and rare earths?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:12): As I was saying, we are blessed with rich deposits of these minerals. We are already the world's largest lithium producer—in fact, we've trebled production in eight years, which is remarkable growth, in an industry largely located in Senator O'Sullivan's home state. We are the second-largest producer of rare earths in the world and we have lots of cobalt. We haven't produced much yet, but we have lots of it here, and there is increased demand for it. We are probably one of the countries with the richest diversity of these types of minerals. The United States government has identified 35 different minerals that are critical to their economy. We are in the top five for world production of 14 of those. That fact has led to discussions with the US administration. In the last month, the Prime Minister has held discussions about that with the President. We have agreed to have a high-level meeting in the United States next month to discuss a joint strategy on how we can work together to guarantee the supply of these minerals and to help our two economies to grow and develop.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (14:13): How important are critical minerals and rare earths to our modern economy?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:13): As I was saying briefly in my answer to the first question, these types of minerals are basically in everything. In every smartphone there are around 25 different minerals and metals. It is more metallurgically complex than a coal-fired power station, for example, which has 10 or 11 different minerals and metals in it. Solar panels have about 16 different minerals and metals in them, and wind turbines have enormous quantities of rare earths. So, you cannot build these things without the development of these minerals. While we take for granted the ease of access to and convenience of these modern technologies, they all get their start with people who like to wear bright colours who are outdoors digging up stuff out of the ground so that we can enjoy the modern life that we have.
Vocational Education and Training
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:14): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. In question time yesterday, Senator Chandler asked the minister how a strong vocational education system is critical to running a strong economy.Why did the minister fail to advise Senator Chandler that on this government's watch the number of apprentices and trainees in Tasmania has fallen by 1,190, a drop of more than 12 per cent?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:14): I really did thank Senator Chandler yesterday for what was an outstanding question on policy—policy that is, in fact, important to the economy. Senator Polley, you may not be aware, but I think that this was articulated exceptionally well by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On this side of the chamber, let me assure you, we will not take lectures from Labor when it comes to skills—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, on a point of order?
Senator Polley: On relevance, Mr President. The minister has not been relevant to the question that was asked of her.
The PRESIDENT: I am listening carefully to the minister's answer. She has 91 seconds remaining. I believe at this point she is being relevant to part of the question asked, but I'm listening carefully. She has 91 seconds to complete her answer.
Senator CASH: In relation to Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, the Minister for Education and Training, issued a press release in June of this year saying that Tasmania has outperformed the nation in apprenticeships and traineeship commencements under the Hodgman Liberal government. On this side of the chamber we will not take lectures from those who were last in government—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Senator Watt: On relevance, Mr President. The minister's answer has not addressed the drop in apprenticeships and traineeships whatsoever. That was the point of the question; not anything else. The drop in apprenticeships and traineeships was the subject of the question.
Senator Cormann: On the point of order: Minister Cash was directly relevant. The question started off by referencing a question by Senator Chandler yesterday, and that self-evidently makes the response of the minister entirely directly relevant.
The PRESIDENT: On the point also, Senator Watt—and if I'm in error I will correct myself in the future—I did just hear the minister refer to some numbers in Tasmania. Again, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. If the minister is answering the question asked, and that answer includes references to numbers in Tasmania quoted from a different source, I believe that is directly relevant.
Senator CASH: Thank you, Mr President, and thank you to Senator Watt for that interjection, because colleagues would know that it is because of Senator Watt visiting seats in Tasmania—sorry, Queensland—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: The point of order is direct relevance. The question goes to the 12 per cent drop in Tasmanian apprenticeships. Why did she not advise Senator Chandler of that, given she asked the question about Tasmanian traineeships?
The PRESIDENT: While interrupted mid-sentence there—I didn't get to hear her conclusion—I believe the minister is being directly relevant at the moment.
Senator CASH: Referring to Senator Watt's great interjection, I was thanking Senator Watt for all the work he did in Queensland in ensuring they only delivered one senator to the Australian Senate and also comprehensively lost the election. Perhaps it was because you were talking about skills!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: Mr President, do I even need to take a point of order? You can't instruct a minister how to answer a question. She deliberately ignored the previous point of order and went on a rant that has nothing to do with the question. Could you please—
Senator CASH: But it was directly responding to the interjection.
Senator Wong: Please don't yell at me on this point. Please don't! With due respect, Mr President, my submission is you should remind the minister of the question. It is a farce to have her going off on a rant when she's asked a question about Tasmanian apprenticeships. We care about those on this side.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on the point of order?
Senator Cormann: In that contribution by Senator Wong just now, where she refers to ignorance of a point of order, she failed to acknowledge that you ruled that there was no point of order.
Senator Wong: On direct relevance, I ask you to rule.
The PRESIDENT: Firstly, I do insist that point of order are raised. I do not consider it my role to be policing the answers of ministers on a rolling brief from the chair. Senator Wong, I do ask that point of orders be raised. On the point of order there, I would remind the minister of the question. I would also remind all others in the chamber that, while interjections are always disorderly—and I say that commonly at this time of the day—if people interject, they can respect the retort from the minister answering the question as well. So I'm not going to rule the minister is out of order, because the minister was responding to an interjection—
Senator Wong: Twice.
The PRESIDENT: Multiple interjections, Senator Wong, I think. Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: With respect, that was her justification in the previous point of order. She then went on after you ruled, where there was no further interjection on the same point. It is a farce.
The PRESIDENT: If I am incorrect, in that I thought I heard further interjections—I will review the video—I apologise, but I thought I heard further interjections. Senator Cormann.
Senator Cormann: On that point of order, the reality is that Senator Cash was entirely directly relevant to the question asked except that she was constantly interrupted by frivolous points of order, which weren't points of order, and persistent interjections.
The PRESIDENT: I'm going to interpret that the minister's comment on a state other than that raised in the question was actually in response to an interjection on multiple occasions. That is my memory of it. If I'm incorrect, I will apologise tomorrow after I watch the video, because I doubt Hansard would have caught it all. Other than that, I actually think the minister was being directly relevant. If people don't want ministers to go off on a tangent—I think the minister was being directly relevant. I ruled so when she was talking about apprentice numbers from a different source, being the state government, than the one quoted in the question from Senator Polley. Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: Is your ruling that you remind the minister of the question, or is your ruling that she was directly relevant? If it is the latter, there is an issue with that. The minister cannot possibly, in my submission—and I'd invite you to take advice—be directly relevant to a question in her portfolio when talking about the election and Queensland seats.
The PRESIDENT: And my point I made is I don't consider that material to be directly relevant. I do consider it to be a response to multiple interjections. And, while they're always disorderly, I am not going to say ministers cannot respond to them when people do not respond to my call for order in the chamber. I have reminded the minister of the question, but I have also ruled her substantive answer, for which a point of order was raised, was directly relevant because she was quoting from a different source about the exact same issue, which was, I believe, the number of apprentices in Tasmania, which was contained in Senator Polley's question. So I will call the minister to continue her answer, ask for no interjections and ask for the discussion to not range north of Bass Strait for a little while. Senator Cash.
Senator CASH: As I was saying, if those on the other side actually care about apprentices, they may wish to ask themselves about how, when we introduced the apprentice wage subsidy, it was actually opposed by those on the other side. If you actually care about getting more people into apprenticeships, you would actually back the government's skills agenda, a commitment in excess of half a billion dollars to ensure that Australians are trained for the jobs of today and for the jobs of tomorrow.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a supplementary question?
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:22): In her answer yesterday, why did the minister fail to advise Senator Chandler that under this government there have been more people dropping off or out of apprenticeships and traineeships than finishing them?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:23): In responding to Senator Chandler yesterday, one of the issues I did point out to her was why we have had to rebuild the TAFE system, the skills system et cetera—the apprentice system—in Australia. And, again, it is a direct result of the failures by those opposite when they were last in government.
As Senator Payne articulated to the chamber, those on the other side left a legacy that comprehensively ripped the guts out of vocational education and training in Australia. In fact, I believe Senator Wong actually sat around the cabinet table when decisions were made to gut over $1.2 billion from employer incentives over just two years. We are committed to vocational education and training in Australia, and—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Polley, a final supplementary question?
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:24): While Tasmania is suffering with the second-highest unemployment in the nation and the lowest mean household income in the nation, this government has slashed $3 billion from TAFE and training. Why did the minister fail to advise Senator Chandler that under her government Australia has 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:24): Because I was explaining to Senator Chandler why yet again we have had to step in as a government and clean up the legacy that those opposite left. You ripped $1.2 billion of employer incentives out of the system. Do you know what actually happened? Do you know what happened? As Senator Payne clearly stated, the greatest fall in apprenticeship numbers on record occurred in 2012-13 when the number of apprenticeship commencements fell by 85,000 in one single year. Senator Polley, perhaps your question is better directed to Senator Wong because Senator Wong was actually sitting around the cabinet table at the time, making decisions to rip out of the system $1.2 billion in employer incentives. We are committed to this system and we will do everything that—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash.
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:25): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Murray-Darling Basin is in environmental collapse after years of mismanagement. We're facing a climate emergency, which will make, of course, droughts worse and more severe. Last summer we saw mass fish kills. Just in the last 48 hours, we've seen another one in the Menindee Lakes. Towns have run out of clean drinking water, and farmers cannot afford to buy water for their stock and crops. In response, the federal government, with their New South Wales colleagues, have decided to spend public money on building dams while overriding environmental and economic assessment. Building dams won't make it rain. In New South Wales, because of their laws, even if these dams are built, water allocation rules mean that the water won't be used for the community or the environment. All evidence shows public money for these dams will only deliver water for big corporate irrigators. Will the government release their cost-benefit analysis, or haven't they bothered to do it?
The PRESIDENT: Before I call Senator Cormann, while a minute is granted for questions, standing order 73(1)(a) does contain some guidelines around the role of statements and, effectively, preambles to questions. I would urge senators to keep that in mind. It reads, 'Statements of fact or names of persons, unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated, shall not be contained in questions.' I urge all senators to keep that in mind when they are considering preambles. Senator Cormann.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:27): The first point is that the government is, of course, absolutely committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and ensuring that the ensuing benefits flow to communities, farmers and the environment. When it comes to the questions in relation to dam infrastructure, the Basin Plan sets sustainable diversion limits, which are how much water can be used in the Murray-Darling Basin while leaving enough water to sustain the natural environment. Basin state governments are responsible for allocating water, and they determine the maximum amount of surface and groundwater that can be extracted from the river system—
The PRESIDENT: Order. Senator Hanson-Young, if you're rising on a point of order on direct relevance, I urge you to consider that it was a very broad minute-long question.
Senator Hanson-Young: I accept that, so I'm going to make it simple. The question was: will the government release the full cost-benefit analysis of these proposals?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, with all due respect, with a preamble like that, you don't get to pick out the words at the end and restate that that's the question. The minister can be directly relevant to any part of the question asked. You had an extensive preamble. The minister's entitled to be directly relevant to any part of that.
Senator CORMANN: Thank you for that ruling, Mr President. I will again say that the government is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, ensuring that the benefits flow to communities, farmers and the environment. I would also point out that the plan is the product of collaboration and cooperation between the federal government and relevant basin state governments. In that context, I was also making the point that basin governments may choose to build new infrastructure or make changes to existing infrastructure—for example, raising dam walls to store more water and improve water security for basin communities. That is entirely consistent with the plan. New or expanded dams don't create water but rather intercept and store large volumes of water which can then be managed as regulated releases.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is required to ensure that state governments are using no more than the long-term annual average limit of water that can be taken from individual catchments within the basin. This requires that state governments have taken the maximum level of water used into consideration in any new development proposals. Any new infrastructure in the basin would need to be filled and used by entitlement volume within the sustainable diversion limits, and all new dams would require the necessary environmental, development, cultural, heritage and other approvals from relevant government authorities. There is not a regulatory responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to approve new dams. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:30): I listened very carefully to the minister's response. And given your response, Minister, whose water allocation under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be cut as a result of water being taken out by these new dams? Will it come from small farmers, towns or the environment? We know it won't be coming from your big corporate irrigator mates.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:30): I completely reject the premise of the question, and clearly Senator Hanson-Young did not listen to my detailed answer, which made the point that new or expanded dams don't create water but, rather, intercept and store large volumes of water, which can then be managed as regulated releases. I also made the point that all of this water that is stored within dams needs to be used by entitlement volume within the sustainable diversion limits. So this is not a matter of somehow taking more water. It is a matter of storing the water that is available to ensure that it can be used more effectively at the appropriate time.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:31): Isn't it true, Minister, that the government's rote response, far from being a plan, is simply to abandon economics and the environment, and the only plan the government's got is to pray for rain?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:31): I completely reject the premise of this question. It's a rather offensive question. We've got rural families and communities around Australia suffering from the impact of the drought. This government is standing shoulder to shoulder with those families and those communities, and we have appreciated the level of bipartisan support for many of the efforts we've put in place. Let me just say that it is a completely outrageous proposition and I reject the premise of the question. We have a very ambitious plan to support drought-affected communities now and into the future, building drought resilience into the future, and we are absolutely focused on doing the right thing in the public interest, in the national interest, at this difficult time and also building the necessary infrastructure to secure a better future.
Environment
Senator VAN (Victoria) (14:32): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister please update the Senate on how a strong economy and strong budget will help Australia reduce waste, improve recycling and build our domestic recycling capacity in the future?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:32): I thank Senator Van for his question and his strong interest in recycling in particular and in practical environmental measures. The benefits of building a strong economy and being in a strong budget position is that governments are able to invest in practical things such as environmental protection and a cleaner environment. Doing so helps to underpin not only a better and cleaner environment but also a strong economy. The Morrison government believes that practical solutions such as reducing waste, increasing recycling rates and growing our domestic waste and recycling industry can deliver both a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. Indeed, evidence shows that reducing waste is not only good for the environment but good for the economy, with just over nine jobs created for every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled.
That's why we are leading a substantial investment in recycling and implementing a comprehensive $167 million Australian recycling investment plan. This includes $100 million through the Australian Recycling Investment Fund, delivered through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to support manufacturing of lower emissions in energy-efficient recycled-content products; $20 million through the Product Stewardship Investment Fund to accelerate work on industry-led recycling schemes, like batteries, electronic products, photovoltaic systems and plastic oil containers; $20 million through the Cooperative Research Centres Projects grant program to find new and innovative solutions to plastic recycling and waste; and of course continuing to work with state, territory and local governments on opportunities to get more recycled content into, particularly, road construction.
At the recent COAG meeting the Prime Minister secured agreement from state and territory leaders to establish a timetable to ban the export of waste that is unnecessary in areas such as plastic, paper, glass and tyres while building Australia's capacity to generate high-value recycled commodities and, importantly, onshore demand for that recycled content.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Van, a supplementary question?
Senator VAN (Victoria) (14:34): I thank the minister for that impressive answer. Can the minister update the Senate on actions the government is taking to stop plastic waste entering our rivers and oceans?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:35): I thank Senator Van for his impressive supplementary question. It's not just a question of addressing the waste and recycling but also a question of whether we, in our deep connection to our oceans, beaches and waterways, are committed to working with our partners across the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean. That's why we're supporting our Pacific neighbours to combat marine litter with the $16 million Pacific Ocean Litter Project. Earlier this month at the Indian Ocean Rim Association ministerial conference on the blue economy, Minister Payne announced the establishment of the IORA Indian Ocean Blue Carbon Hub. This Perth based scientific hub hosted by the Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre at the University of Western Australia will allow experts from across the Indian Ocean rim to protect the health of ocean carbon ecosystems, such as mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrasses, providing more practical assistance towards a cleaner environment.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Van, a final supplementary question?
Senator VAN (Victoria) (14:36): Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:36): Our government is showing clear leadership in this regard. Prime Minister Morrison demonstrates clear passion to reform Australia's recycling industry to deal with the issue of waste that is being exported, making sure that we create better scientific and economic plans not just in Australia but across our region. This will Australia's recycling capability and ensure we have cleaner beaches and oceans.
In terms of other plans, we hear silence when it comes to these types of practical environmental initiatives. Those opposite often have lofty rhetoric when it comes to the environment but never deliver when it comes to practical policies or practical on-the-ground measures that can help households and businesses or, most importantly, set up economically viable, ongoing, resilient commercial industries to drive waste management and make sure we have greater recycling well into the future.
Employment
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:37): My question this afternoon is to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. The Grattan Institute's report Generation gap: ensuring a fair go for younger Australiansfound rising rates of underemployment for under-25s account for much of the growth in underemployment overall. Can the minister confirm that the share of employed young people who are actively seeking more work has grown from 12 per cent to 20 per cent over the past decade?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:38): The thing that the Australian government is concerned about is ensuring that Australians across the board have the opportunity to get a job. That's why the focus of the Australian government has been on employment and creating 1.4 million jobs for Australians over the last 12 months, including over 100,000 for young people. Our focus has been on continuing to keep a strong economy, growing youth employment and ensuring that young people have the opportunity to get a degree.
Our focus, clearly, is on continuing to ensure that young people have the opportunity to get a job. Based on the premise and the structure that the Australian government has put into place, 100,000 jobs were created in the last 12 months in the Australian economy. When I talk to young people around Australia, that is the focus that they have.
Senator Polley: When did you last see a young person?
Senator COLBECK: Only very recently, Senator Polley. Our focus remains on doing the things that are important to young people here in Australia: keeping the Australian economy strong and ensuring opportunities for jobs growth.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I suggest, with respect, that we don't start the new habit of applause, except at the end of first or valedictory speeches. There is a time after question time to note answers. Applause is clearly out of order, whether it is intended or otherwise. Senator Pratt, a supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:40): With a youth unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent, 260,000 young Australians are unemployed. Can the minister confirm that youth unemployment is more than double the national average for unemployment?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:40): Clearly the youth unemployment rate is higher than the national rate for unemployment across the board. That's a statement of fact. I will confirm the fact that you put on the table. That's why we have a number of programs in place specifically to target the employment of youth in the Australian economy.
Senator Cash: Youth Jobs PaTH.
Senator COLBECK: The Youth Jobs PaTH—which, I might add, Labor opposed tooth and nail—is about getting young people job ready, it's about giving them a go and it's about getting them into a job. The program that the Labor Party opposed in this parliament is about assisting youth and working with youth to get them a job, actually being practical about doing things and not opposing things in the chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:42): Currently there are more than 670,000 young Australians unemployed or underemployed. Can the minister confirm this represents more than 30 per cent of young people?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:42): That's why we have put in place the programs to assist young people to get into a job that we have.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: The opposition interject that they're failing, yet the facts don't demonstrate that. When 100,000 jobs for young people have been created in the last 12 months, that doesn't indicate that the programs that we're putting into place are failing; in fact it indicates that we're being proactive about what we're doing as a government. It's about the fact that we're working with Australians within the economy to get people into jobs, and the fact that there are so many jobs being created for young people across the economy is an indication that the programs we're putting in place, opposed by those opposite, are working. They opposed the jobs PaTH program we put in place to assist people to get a foot in the door and to get employment.
Carers
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Morrison government has produced a strong economy and strong budget that facilitate initiatives and support for Australia's carers, especially those young carers at risk of long-term welfare dependence?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:43): I thank Senator Askew for her question, particularly given that this week is actually National Carers Week, where Australians recognise that around 2.7 million Australians care for somebody else who needs a little extra help. I think it is timely for us to celebrate the contribution that these people make to the social fabric of our country. I also acknowledge today Ara Cresswell, the CEO, and Dr Peter Langkamp, the president of Carers Australia and thank them for the extraordinary effort and time that they put into the amazing support they gave us during the recent reform process. This new reform process now sees $700 million worth of support going to Australia's unpaid carers through the new Integrated Carer Support Service model. It is designed by carers for carers, and the co-design process was led by Carers Australia.
This new model actually puts in place a very strong emphasis on early intervention. We want to ensure that carers get the help that they need before they reach crisis point. We want to make sure that by 2021-22 there will be five times the number of services available to our unpaid carers than are available today. Most importantly, we want to support our young carers. We want to make sure that they are not at risk of long-term welfare dependency. One of the programs we've put in place is the Young Carers Bursary Program, which provides assistance of up to $3,000 for young carers. We've already put more than 980 young people through this particular course, and we intend to increase the numbers of those doing that. But how do we do it? We can do it, because we have a strong economy. We have a strong economy that allows us to fund the services that are so important to some of these essential groups that support our community. On this side, we're delivering on our promises. We're supporting Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:45): The government's Carer Gateway is providing new digital counselling and other online services for the first time. Minister, what other options are being provided to those carers who have limited IT skills and prefer to talk to someone and discuss their circumstances in person?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:46): Thank you, Senator Askew, for your follow-up question. Since July this year, we have put in place a new digital IT platform for digital counselling and online services through the very important Carers Gateway. However, we do recognise that there are still a number of people out there who either can't or prefer not to access this kind of information through savvy IT services. Instead, they prefer to get their information in person. With carers, we want to continue to make sure that they can access face-to-face and phone support for services through the existing carers program under the new Integrated Carer Support Service. This new gateway provides services in carer support, planning, coaching, counselling, financial support and the like. Once again, Australians know that you can only provide these sorts of services if you have a strong economy, because a strong economy allows us to afford to put these things in place.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a final supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:47): Minister, what is the Morrison government doing to support carers who need to access respite services?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:47): We absolutely understand that one of the fundamental services that carers are calling for is respite service. We want to make sure that those respite services are available to people before they get to a crisis point, so that's why in the 2019-20 budget we announced an additional $84.3 million over the next four years to boost availability for respite services and support, particularly for our young carers. Under our reforms, we are going to continue to build the amount of funding that's available to this really critical group of people who provide services to our community. As I said, one of the most important services that carers have advised us they're asking for is respite services. In this National Carers Week, it is fantastic to acknowledge our national carers. With the theme of 'why we care', it's very appropriate to acknowledge their extraordinary work. (Time expired)
Vocational Education and Training
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:48): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Minister Birmingham. Do you believe that our young people who don't want to go to uni and who like learning with their hands—like me—have access to high-quality, modern facilities and training equipment?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:48): I thank Senator Lambie for her question and her interest in this area. The answer, in general, to her question is: yes. Choice is important for Australian students, school leavers and others, in terms of their educational opportunities. It is important to ensure we have the skills mix that we need for our economy, and it's important that both the higher education sector and the vocational education and training sector are responsive to the employment opportunities of students—what jobs they will be able to secure when they leave and that those sectors are training people accordingly for those jobs of the future. Certainly, in terms of our higher education reforms—performance funding for universities—we have sought to better gear funding and university behaviour to ensure that they enrol students in courses that have the greatest potential for employment success.
In terms of the agreements we have with states and territories around vocational education and training, we provide funding directly to the states and territories for the administration and support of vocational, education and training systems. Again, Minister Cash, now in the skills and vocational education area, works to make sure that states and territories are more responsive in the utilisation of that funding, so that students enrolled in those vocational education courses—be they apprenticeships or other areas of vocational training—are actually enrolled in courses that have the greatest job prospects for the future and that every dollar of Commonwealth funding that flows, such as the $162.8 million dollars provided to Tasmania over five years through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, is targeted to support skills development in the areas that have the greatest economic need and the greatest employment prospects for those young Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:50): That's great, Minister. It seems like you and I are on the same page. I find it very interesting because I recently visited a few TAFEs. Would you be surprised to learn, and do you think it's appropriate, that the students in our TAFEs are, in some cases, learning their trades on equipment that was manufactured during the Cold War?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:51): Mr President, I'll make a few points in relation to Senator Lambie's comment and assertion. In some instances, equipment may well last a long period of time, but, where necessary, modern equipment should be available for modern skills and training needs. TAFEs are not run by the Australian government; they are run by the states and territories. That's why, as a federal government, we provide significant funding to the states and territories. In addition to the $3 billion we spend annually, we're investing some $585 million in significant reforms in the vocational and educational and training sector. Whilst not directly funding TAFEs, that money is there for utilisation by states and territories to ensure that students have access to courses they need, and that those TAFEs or other training providers, are delivering modern courses befitting the training that people need for the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:52): Minister, given that our young people are being trained on Soviet-era technology, does the government have any plans to provide top-ups to the TAFEs for infrastructure and equipment, and, if so, how much do you intend to commit across the nation?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:52): As an aside, I'm always disappointed when a reference to anything in the Soviet era is made in this chamber when Senator Kim Carr is not present—it's a missed opportunity. However, in all seriousness, because it's a serious question that Senator Lambie asks, the federal government is not in the business of directly funding those institutions. Our business is in funding the states and territories, who own the TAFEs, who operate the TAFEs and who set the policies around enrolment in the TAFEs, and in making sure that those states and territories are held to account for investing in the skills needs that Australians want to pursue.
I know that Senator Cash, in negotiating with the states and territories, has a laser-like focus on ensuring that they are looking at spending every single dollar on the things that will give training with optimal employment outcomes for young Australians, whether that's investing in the equipment, investing in the types of subsidies that are delivered to those students, making sure they get the skills— (Time expired)
Employment
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. While youth unemployment is at 11.7 per cent—more than double the national average—the government's flagship youth employment program, PaTH, is failing. Having set itself the target of 30,000 internship placements per year, can the minister confirm that only 8,234 young people have commenced internships between April 2017 and January 2019?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Order, on both sides of the chamber, so that the minister may—all senators, can you show some respect to Senator Smith, who has asked the question, so that she may receive an answer. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:54): Thank you, Mr President. I can confirm that that's the number of placements that have been made under the program. But it's also worth noting that it's better than it would have been under the circumstance that the Labor Party voted for in this chamber, which was not to have the program at all. So over 8,000 people do have the opportunity to start a job, based on this program.
We've also a number of other programs that we've put in place. I know a very popular program, in Tasmania, which is to provide a subsidy for the first and second year of apprentices. There's been a huge uptake—in fact, a very, very fast uptake in Tasmania. So we're continuing to work to grow the number of people in employment. In fact, the number of people in youth employment has increased by 23,200 or 1.2 per cent to a record high of 1.963 million, over the year, to August 2019.
As I said before, we continue to grow youth employment. Full-time youth employment has risen by 17,900, a 2.1 per cent increase, and youth part-time employment has increased by 5,400 or 0.5 per cent. It's worth noting that even though the unemployment rate is at 11.7 per cent right now, it is one per cent lower than it was when Labor left government.
We continue to work to get people into jobs. We continue to work to get all Australians into jobs. That's why we implement programs that support youth into employment, even though the Labor Party might oppose them. They give young people the opportunity to get a start—things that the Labor Party oppose.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (14:56): Reports have indicated that only 30 per cent of PaTH participants have been offered a job at the end of their internship. Are these figures correct? If not, what percentage of PaTH participants have been offered a job at the end of their internship?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:56): Mr President, I'm not too sure why the Labor Party are complaining that 30 per cent of 8,000 young people have got a job. I'm not sure why they're complaining about this. A program that the Labor Party didn't support is actually, in their own words, 'getting young people into employment'. I'm not sure why the Labor Party would complain about that. Had the Labor Party had their way, this program wouldn't exist and nobody would have got a job. As I said, the unemployment rate when the Labor Party left office was 12.7 per cent. It's now 11.7 per cent. Is it low enough? No, it's not. We continue to work on that. But when the Labor Party oppose programs that are about practically providing opportunities for young people to get into work, I won't be lectured, we won't be lectured, by the Labor Party when we're actually trying to do things that will provide opportunities for young people to get a job.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (14:57): The government has overseen the highest level of youth unemployment and underemployment in 40 years, the lowest number of new apprenticeships and traineeships in 20 years, and the failure of its exploitative PaTH program. Isn't it clear that after six years of coalition government young Australians are going to work harder but go backwards?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:58): Mr President, I have to completely reject the premise of the question. Given that the unemployment rate was 12.7 when they were in government and 11.7 per cent now, the unemployment rate is clearly lower than it was when the Labor Party were in government. So I reject that part of the question. The level of youth employment has increased by 1.2 per cent to a record high of 1.963 million over the year to August 2019. We continue to grow employment at all levels, including youth employment. We continue to grow employment, and we continue to put in place programs to assist young people to get into work. And we won't be lectured by the Labor Party, who have opposed programs to provide opportunities for young people to get into work.
International Day of Rural Women
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (14:59): I note this is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. Today is International Day of Rural Women. Can the minister outline the government's initiatives to recognise the contribution of rural women to Australia and to empower their aspirations?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:59): Before I answer the final question in today's question time, can I please acknowledge the members of the ADF Parliamentary Program who are joining us in the gallery today. I acknowledge them and thank them very much for their service and their contribution.
Thank you, Senator Henderson, for your question. This morning I had the opportunity to join the National Rural Women's Coalition for their annual rural and regional women's muster, here in Canberra. It is a very opportune time to acknowledge the crucial role of rural women in Australian communities on this International Day of Rural Women. In the 2019 muster there are 12 indomitable women. They literally cover the length and breadth of this country—from Richmond in Tasmania, from Mantung in South Australia, from Geraldton and Margaret River in WA, from Yulara in the Northern Territory, and even from Norfolk Island. They bring diversity to their engagement with us in Canberra and they are bringing forward the views and the voices of rural women. We had a great conversation, it was particularly moving in parts, including on the challenges of drought for them and for their families, on mental health, on isolation and on a range of other factors.
I want to especially acknowledge today the representatives of rural women's organisations who have been joining me at women's stakeholder round tables in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania in recent months, because they bring a distinct perspective to women's safety, economic empowerment and leadership issues. We are very committed to supporting rural women and girls in succeeding. Our Women's Economic Security Statement, which is backed by $151 million in funding over the four years, includes a number of measures that support rural, regional and remote women and girls. I particularly love the Future Female Entrepreneurs Program, which will engage around 55,000 girls in around 50 face-to-face workshops, as well as young women nationwide, via a digital platform. It is the digital platform that so helps to enable girls in rural, regional and remote areas to also engage in the program and tap into the 100 pieces of original content videos and articles.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, a supplementary question?
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (15:01): Can the minister advise the Senate of the government's initiatives for rural, regional and remote women under the Women's Economic Security Statement and the Women's Leadership and Development Program?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (15:01): I can, and I want to acknowledge Senator Henderson's leadership as a woman from regional Australia who has joined us here in the Senate following the experience of the House of Representatives—she has come from the other place—and I note her great leadership in her own community, particularly around Geelong. The Women's Economic Security Statement includes measures that support rural, regional and remote women's workforce participation. They are measures like Career Revive, an initiative that gives tailored business improvement assistance for regional employers to recruit and retain women who are seeking to return to work after a career break. The first intake of those 10 businesses was selected just in August of this year.
Through the Women's Leadership and Development Program we are funding small-scale and one-off grants to specifically support rural, regional and remote women. There are two great examples I want to mention today: the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Women's Leadership Forum, an annual one-day women's leadership forum in Kalgoorlie where high-profile speakers discuss leadership; and, most recently, our commitment to CatholicCare Wilcannia-Forbes— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question?
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (15:02): Can the minister advise the Senate of what support the government provides for rural women experiencing family and domestic violence?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (15:03): This is one of the most challenging areas not only for government but most importantly for the families and communities that experience violence, particularly in relation to women and their children. We are proud to have made the single largest Commonwealth investment, an amount of $340 million, to support the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022. The plan has a deliberate focus on responding to diverse perspectives, including rural women, through National Priority 3 in particular: 'Respect, listen and respond to the diverse lived experience and knowledge of women and their children affected by violence.' Through the Fourth Action Plan, we also have invested $64 million in 1800RESPECT, and it is nationally available to women across Australia through telephone counselling and online support. That includes projects to improve accessibility for people from vulnerable and diverse cohorts, including, of course, coverage of rural, regional and remote locations. There is more to do, but these are important steps. (Time expired)
Senator Cormann: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Question Time
The PRESIDENT (15:04): Could I make a brief statement about a matter I committed to take away during question time yesterday. Yesterday, I committed to look at the Hansard of question time and consider points of order raised regarding the direct relevance of an answer given by Senator Payne. Upon reviewing the Hansard I am happy with the ruling that I provided at the time: that the minister was directly relevant to the question, which included a quotation from a speech made by the Prime Minister, by including other material from that speech in her answer. In deliberating on this, I consider it important that the matters the minister referred to in her answer were not simply any material in the quoted speech but were directly related to the subject matter quoted in the question, in this case foreign affairs and policy, and not an unrelated policy area that just happened to be in the same speech.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Question Nos 382 and 689
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:05): Under standing order 74(5)(a), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Cash, as to why questions 382 and 689, which I placed on notice on 12 August and 13 September respectively, remain unanswered.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (15:05): Thank you, Senator Keneally, and thank you for the notice. Unfortunately, I received it at 2.04 pm, so I have not yet had an opportunity to raise this with the minister. I will undertake to do so and revert to the chamber. It is my understanding that you have placed a substantial number of questions on the Notice Paperwhich have been responded to. However, I will raise this with the minister and revert.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:05): Under standing order 74(5)(b), I move:
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
To the people in the chamber here today and in the gallery: I don't know if you have children. I do. When my kids were little, they used to say to me: 'Why do we have to learn about maths? Why is maths so important? When am I ever going to use maths in my daily life when I grow up?' Sometimes as a parent you struggle to find the practical applications for maths in daily life. You can talk about bank accounts and home loans, but that is a bit of an abstract notion. Today I sit here and wonder: did the government members learn about maths when they were growing up, and do they see the application of maths in the jobs they do today? For example, can they count to 30? When you lodge a question on notice, ministers get 30 days to answer it. That is simple counting, and they have simply missed that deadline. The minister, in her explanation, noted that I have placed a substantial number of questions on notice. Hey, by the way, that is my right as a senator. The minister also noted that many of them have been answered. Well, in fact, I could have put more questions here today that have not been answered. I chose these two, but there are a number that have not yet been answered.
But let me continue on why maths is important. Just this week, again on the issue of questions on notice, this government showed its lack of ability to deal with maths. I had a question to the government regarding the number of plane arrivals between 31 July and 19 August and they gave me the incorrect number. They gave me the number for another set of dates. So not only have this government lost control of the borders at our airports; they have lost control of the ability to do the basic maths to count the number of people who are coming to our airports and claiming asylum.
What we do know, though, is that, even though they couldn't count accurately for the period specified in my question on notice, one number remains valid in their answer, and that is that, under this third-term Liberal government, a record 95,000 people have arrived at our nation's airports and claimed asylum. Under this third-term Liberal government, Australia has seen 95,000 people arrive at our airports and claim asylum. That is at least one number they got right. Well, we assume they got it right. Maybe they will come back and change that, too; I don't know.
Of course, this government does have a track record. I do have a bit of a memory. I remember the omnibus savings bill in 2016. I don't know whether the Minister for Finance remembers that bill. The government introduced that bill in 2016. They had a maths problem in that bill. This was their big omnibus savings bill. On page 5 of that bill, there was a $107 million error. Do you know what the then Treasurer, Scott Morrison—he's got another job now, by the way; he's the Prime Minister. He was the Treasurer then. He called it 'a computational error', making him possibly the first Treasurer in the history of Australia to admit that maths is not his strong suit!
Of course, we do know that, when it comes to managing the budget, this government does have a particular problem managing numbers, because, when we left office in September 2013, net debt was at $175 billion. Net debt today under this third-term Liberal government is $399.1 billion. I'll leave the government to see if they can do the maths to work out how much they have increased net debt. Gross debt in September 2013 was $280 billion. Hazard a guess as to what it is now. If you don't know, don't worry; I can tell you. It's $565 billion. Again, there is a math problem for the government. How much have they increased gross debt under this third-term Liberal government?
We come to the questions that I have asked, and some of them are maths based, so perhaps they had trouble doing the maths. I asked in question 698:
1. How many people made onshore protection claims in the 2018-19 financial year.
Then I asked:
2. In the 2018-19 financial year, how many people made onshore protection claims in the following jurisdictions:
a. New South Wales;
b. Queensland;
c. Victoria;
d. South Australia;
e. Western Australia;
f. Tasmania;
g. the Australian Capital Territory; and
h. the Northern Territory.
Then I went on and asked a number of other questions, including:
3. Can a breakdown be provided of citizenship by country (for the top 10 countries only) :
I would have thought this was information—numbers—that the Department of Home Affairs would have to hand, and the government could have then provided to this Senate. I also note that I asked a number of other questions in question 382—for example:
1. When in 2016—
2016, by the way, is the year they had the omnibus savings bill that had the $107 million computational error in it, but I digress—
did the Minister first become aware of the current surge in asylum seeker applications from citizens of Malaysia and when did the Minister first become aware of the current surge of asylum seeker applications from citizens of China.
2. What actions did the Minister take once he became aware of these surges and when were these actions taken.
Then I went on and asked a few other questions. I asked another maths question again, so perhaps maths really isn't the strong suit of this government:
5. Of the people who have arrived by plane and then applied for asylum since 2014 (inclusive) , what are the current numbers for each of the top five citizenships …
a. at primary stage;
b. at the AAT;
c. at judicial review—
et cetera. It was a range of questions that go to the heart of what this government says is their core strength: securing our nation's borders. They have no problem telling you the number of boats that arrive. They have no problem telling you the number of asylum seeker applications for people who came by boat in the previous five years before they took office. They have a huge problem being straight with the Australian people that, when it comes to asylum seeker applications for people who arrive by aeroplane, we are on track to double the number of people who lodged an asylum claim and came by boat. We are closing in on 100,000 applications—onshore asylum seeker applications—from this government, who trumpet that securing the borders is their top priority and their core expertise.
Let's remember that, because we're an island, yes, we have water borders, but we also have airport borders, and this government created the Department of Home Affairs. When they did that, they brought in Australian Border Force. They brought in the Australian Federal Police. They brought in ASIO, ASIS and all of those agencies under this megadepartment, the Department of Home Affairs, because they and they alone, they claimed, knew how to secure the borders and keep Australians safe. This is what the then Prime Minister—you may remember him; his name is Malcolm Turnbull—said in July 2017:
When it comes to our nation's security, we must stay ahead of the threats against us. There is no room for complacency. There is no room for set and forget.
The current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has used the same phrase when describing everything from Australia's foreign policy through to the emergency response for the drought. 'There is no set and forget,' says the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.
Yet, while there was so much fanfare around the creation of the Department of Home Affairs portfolio, it would seem that 'set and forget' has been the key strategy for both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs when it comes to this critical portfolio. After all, how else can you possibly explain that there are more than 200,000 people on bridging visas right now in Australia? That is a massive increase in the number of bridging visas. I might put that as a question on notice and see if that's another math problem the government can solve. What has been the increase, the blowout, in bridging visas? More than 221,000 would-be citizens, permanent residents, are waiting an average of 13 months to have their citizenship applications processed. Let's reflect that when they took over, when we left office, it took about five months to get a citizenship application processed. Here is a maths problem: it now takes 13 months; it used to take five. How many more months has it blown out?
Senator Walsh: Eight.
Senator KENEALLY: Eight. Thank you very much, Senator. They also have paid more than $423 million to Paladin, a company first based out of a beach shack in Kangaroo Island that later went on to be fined some 3,700 times in a 12-month period for failing to meet minimum service standards. How did Paladin get this contract? We really don't know, because there was no competitive tender. There was no maths, obviously, involved. The government simply just threw a whole lot of money to this company that was registered to a beach shack and said, 'Go ahead'—$20 million a month.
By the way, Paladin are so bad at doing their job. They were supposed to be providing security to Manus Island. Apparently they were not very good at it, because we know from other information provided to the Senate that the Department of Home Affairs officials were too scared to visit Manus Island, because they felt it was not secure. So there you go, $20 million a month of Australians' money and not getting the job done.
There is possibly no greater example, though, of 'set and forget' than the Minister for Home Affairs' approach to border security. You only have to look at the government's leaked talking points this week to know that the minister is a little bit obsessed when it comes to talking about Labor. After all, it was a Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who in fact did the heavy lifting to get the boats stopped. Scott Morrison has given himself that little trophy about, 'I stopped the boats.' We've all seen the photo of that in his office. He picked up and ran with what Kevin Rudd had been putting in place. Peter Dutton swanned into the portfolio and he assumed that the risks to Australia's border security would remain static. But, while the Minister for Home Affairs has been so keen to talk about boats, he has missed the fact that the people smugglers have changed their business model from boats to planes. He has utterly missed the fact that the people smugglers have changed their business model from boats to planes. That is why we are seeing this massive blowout in the number of people who are coming to Australia seeking asylum coming through our nation's airports.
I want to put on record that there is nothing wrong with seeking asylum—it is an important legal right—but that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that people smugglers are trafficking workers, largely from China and Malaysia, on electronic tourist and other valid visas. They are bringing people into Australia. They are getting them to apply for asylum while they are here. They know that because this department has had a blowout in processing all types of applications—asylum, citizenship, parent visas, child visas. All of those time frames have blown out. So what happens? These people are put on bridging visas. They are given work rights and then they are sent out to work in low-paid, exploitative conditions. They are sent out to work in horticulture, in hospitality and in a range of other industries to work in these low-paid, exploitative conditions—conditions that I can only describe as akin to slavery.
I have met some of these workers. They tell stories of being paid just a couple of dollars an hour. They tell stories of having their belongings taken away from them while they are out during the day at work and then they are forced to buy them back from the labour hire company. They tell stories of how the labour hire company takes their passports and their papers and essentially holds them hostage.
I just want to make a couple of observations here. One is that the growers in our horticulture industry are not to blame for this. They are in fact sick of this going on. They are being held hostage by these labour hire companies as well, and by this government's failure to provide an appropriate visa system that provides the reliable, steady stream of workers they need. That is why we saw the horticulture sector out last year arguing for an agriculture visa. That is why we see them in the building here today, trying to meet with MPs to talk about the fact that they do not have access to a steady supply of workers. I met with one grower who offered to directly hire the workers who were coming onto his farm and pay them appropriately—because he was already paying the appropriate wage to the labour hire company; it just wasn't being passed on to the workers. He offered to do that, and the next day half the workers didn't turn up, because they couldn't: they were essentially being held hostage by the labour hire company, which had their passports and their papers.
That is the trafficking of workers into this country and the exploitation that is taking place under this government, which has failed to notice that people smugglers are using the asylum seeker system and the blowout in processing times to traffic people here to work in exploitative conditions. The questions I asked on notice were designed to get a better understanding of the scale of the problem, to define it, to help us to find a policy solution. And when I say 'us' I don't just mean the Labor Party; I mean us, this Senate, and us Australia. I've held two roundtables, one here in Canberra and one in Shepparton in Victoria, where I have sat down and spoken with local councils, with unions, with the growers and with the growers associations. I have been to farms. I have talked to workers who have been exploited. I have tried to help define this problem so that we can try to find some solutions.
That, though, is not what the government seems to be interested in. They know—and they themselves cite a figure—that some 85 per cent of the people who apply for asylum, when they come to our airports, are found not to be refugees. This is clearly what is happening. People are being trafficked here. And, by the way, I say to the members of the government and I say to the people who are here today listening to this debate and across Australia who are listening: don't just take my word for it. Assistant Minister Jason Wood, in this government, was previously the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Migration. What did he say in a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Migration report last year? He said that criminal syndicates and illegitimate labour hire companies are exploiting a loophole in our immigration system to traffic workers into the country. Those are the words of the assistant minister in this Liberal-Nationals third-term government. If he can see it, why can't the government see it?
And take the word of the member for Mallee, Dr Anne Webster, who described what is going on in horticulture as 'a crisis'. She has described it as a crisis. She has called on her own Prime Minister to take action on this, yet the government sits silent. And not only do they sit silent; they stand condemned of being unable to do even the basic maths to appropriately count the number of people who are coming to our airports and claiming asylum. They lack the capacity to comply with the standing orders of this Senate to supply answers to questions on notice within the required 30 days. If they were so serious about border security, they would have these answers at their fingertips and they would be able to supply them to the Senate.
Let me also make this point. When people are trafficked into the country, it is an exploitation of those people, and we should be morally outraged and we should condemn it. I don't think the mums and dads of Australia would like to know that the fruit they are putting in their children's lunchboxes was picked by some 19-year-old woman who's been trafficked here, who is being paid $4 an hour and who is subject to physical and sexual abuse. I really don't think that is the Australian fair go, the Australian way of life or something that the mums and dads of Australia would appreciate.
Let me also make the observation that when we build an economy based on a temporary exploited migrant workforce it lowers the wages and conditions available across the economy. When we have workers in hospitality or in horticulture or in beauty or in transport or in any other industry working for as little as $4 an hour, that makes it really hard for other businesses to compete on price and it lowers the wages and conditions. It's perhaps not surprising coming from a government that said that low wages were a design feature of their economic plan. This is the design feature they have for Australia. They are building an economy based on a low-paid, migrant, temporary and exploited workforce.
The fact that they cannot stand here today in the Senate and answer basic questions after 30 days about the number of people who are coming through our airports and claiming asylum—when they have no recognition that this is a problem, when they have their own ministers and members calling out for them to take action and when they have the horticulture industry in the building today trying to get solutions in front of government—means they should stand condemned, and they are condemned. I look forward and hope that, when the minister finally answers my questions, he gets his maths right and he gets his answers right. But, more importantly, I hope we get action on this problem and we get a solution.
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (15:26): I also rise to take note of Minister Cash's explanation of unanswered questions on notice, or, should I say, I take note of a non-explanation regarding unanswered questions on notice. I am relatively new to this place, but it doesn't really seem like an unreasonable request to me that these questions are answered within 30 days. These are pretty basic questions and, as Senator Keneally said, they're questions of basic mathematics. So why aren't the government answering our questions? What is it that they're trying to hide? Not answering questions put to the government through correct channels in this place says more about their answers than their leaked talking points do. Maybe the government are trying to hide the fact that this financial year an average of 65 people per day made a claim for asylum under the Liberals, or maybe they're trying to hide the fact that a staggering 4,000 airplane people made a claim for protection between 1 July 2019 and 31 August 2019. That's 4,000 people in just 62 days under this government.
The government's own leaked talking points on this issue state, 'The government is focusing resources both on and offshore to prevent unmeritorious protection claims,' but they say they have stopped the boats. So what offshore protection are they focusing on? Are they focusing on it at all? From 1 July 2014 to 31 August 2019, 95,000 protection visa applications were lodged by persons who entered Australia lawfully by air. Some of our regional towns don't have that population. It's a population that could almost fill the MCG or, more relevantly to people in my state, they could fill two Adelaide Ovals, and yet the government's leaked talking points state that the number of people who apply for protection is declining. In 2018-19, the number of onshore protection claims fell by 12 per cent—a result of the government's focus on stopping unmeritorious claims. Ninety-five thousand are a result of the government's focus. I think it's time for the government to visit the optometrist, because their focus is completely out of whack. But, more than that, the government claim that, between 2018 and 2019, the number of onshore protection claims fell by 12 per cent, but, when you look back at the breakdown of figures per year since 2014, what you can actually see is that under this government the figures rose substantially every year and there was merely a very small decrease between 2018-19. The breakdown shows that, between 2014 and 2015, there were over 8,000 persons. The next year the number jumped to over 12,000, the year after it was 18,000 and in 2017-18 the number of people who made a claim for protection soared to a staggering 27,000.
It must be said that the majority of the people applying for asylum are not genuine refugees. We are not talking about vulnerable stateless people who need our protection; we are talking about people who are exploiting a loophole in this government's so-called tough border protection to seek asylum in Australia illegally. The government can try and blur the figures all they like. They can skew the figures to their benefit as much as they like, but they can't hide from the fact that under this government the exploitation of Australia's visa and migration system is absolutely out of control, and the government know this.
The now Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Jason Wood MP, flagged the exploitation of Australia's visa and migration system earlier this year. In the last parliament, Mr Wood was the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The committee handed down its report on the inquiry into the efficacy of current regulation of Australian migration and education agents. Wood made the following comments, as chair, in the forward:
Organised crime and illegitimate labour hire companies are using this loophole to bring out illegal workers who are often vulnerable and open to exploitation. This represents an orchestrated scam that enables these criminal elements to exploit foreign workers in Australia until their claims are finalised.
So, the government can pretend they don't know where their focus is and they can pretend the figures don't exist or, at least, the figures they don't like—but the government cannot hide from the fact that they knew about this issue and they knew the extent of this issue. They have lost control of our borders.
Of the protection visa applications decided by the department between 1 July 2014 and 19 August 2019, over 60,000 people, or 84 per cent to be exact, were refused. The government like to stand up in this place and dismiss genuine refugees who come to this country to seek protection for their families and hope for a better life, but they're more than happy to allow tens of thousands of people who are not genuine refugees to exploit our immigration system via the air. Worst of all, the government know all of this and are not telling us because they know the Australian people would not accept a government that has lost control of its borders and put our national security at risk. Both the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Peter Dutton, and the immigration minister, David Coleman, have confirmed this. Peter Dutton has said that, between 2014-15 and 2017-18, 64,362 people arrived by air and subsequently applied for protection. Over the same period, 7,600 were granted a protection visa, which is a refusal rate of 90 per cent. And David Coleman has said:
… people who arrive lawfully by plane, we obviously know who they are. They have a lawful visa. And in terms of the people who actually apply for protection when they get here, more than 90 per cent are rejected and the number of people who are applying … so far this year is down by about 20 per cent. So it's coming down the number of people are applying onshore for protection. So, for the Labor Party to raise issues related to protection visas is ridiculous. Their legacy in unlawful boat arrivals, where our Border Force officers were required to go out onto the high seas to place themselves at risk and of course, the families themselves placing themselves at risk, that was an appalling situation. It was a humanitarian catastrophe. And there is absolutely no comparison to other forms of applications for protection.
That's what David Coleman said.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, may I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct title.
Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Yes, apologies. There is a greater issue at play here with aeroplane people claiming asylum, and it is an issue of exploitation. Once these individuals make a claim for protection and their original visa expires, they are placed on a bridging visa, often with work rights. There are currently over 200,000 people on bridging visas in Australia. The number of people on bridging visas in Australia reached the record high of 230,000 in March this year under this Liberal government. Bridging visas have blown out quarter on quarter, year on year since Peter Dutton became the responsible minister in 2014. That is six straight years of significant increases. The number of people on bridging visas in Australia increased by 29,000. Since the Liberals formed government in September 2013 the number of people on bridging visas in Australia has increased by 93,000. In fact, this increase alone is more than double the number of boat arrivals under the previous Labor government. So the government, who are constantly telling Australia that they are strong on our borders and strong on the protection of our national security, are, in fact, not telling us the full picture.
The government attempts to claim the majority of people on bridging visas are part of the legacy case load of boat arrivals. The home affairs minister has been quoted as saying:
… people who arrived under the Labor Party by boat are, a large number of the times, we don't know who they are because of the issues in terms of identity. They don't have travel documents and there are still many thousands of those people who are on bridging visas in the community as a direct consequence of the 50,000 people who arrived under Labor. We've got that number down over the years but it's been a long process and continues to be and is a direct consequence of Labor's appalling legacy.
However, according to the July 2019 illegal maritime arrivals legacy case load report, there are only 8,000 people with applications on hand or at review.
Visa processing times are both the reason for and a symptom of the current problem. In addition to all of this, the government has allowed these people to become vulnerable and face widespread exploitation in Australia. It's contributing to a growing labour crisis in the agricultural and horticulture sector, as Senator Keneally has said, and is significantly impacting my home state of South Australia. Virginia in South Australia is a regional town close to Adelaide, with most growers requiring labour all year round to work on a variety of vegetable crops, such as carrots, potatoes and tomatoes, although there are, of course, some inflated labour needs at harvest time.
A study conducted by Howe et al at the University of Adelaide titled Towards a durable future: tackling labour challenges in the Australian horticulture industry showed some staggering evidence of the government's policy failure in this area:
Despite being an eligible postcode for the WHM visa extension, growers we interviewed relied heavily on a local population of recently arrived permanent migrants from developing countries.
The absence of an intermediary role by accommodation providers can be attributed to the permanent residency status of the workforce with no need for temporary accommodation.
The case study in Virginia also revealed much less reliance on intermediaries than in the other four case studies. In this location, the … ABC FourCorners television investigation exposing non-compliant labour hire use in Virginia in 2015 has had a unique impact on growers' decision-making regarding labour hire use.
There was general consensus among large and medium-sized growers in Virginia that using labour hire posed significant risks to their businesses. As one grower reported, "After that [the Four Corners program] wemoved to direct employment and hired a human resources manager".
There was a high level of distrust of labour hire among growers in Virginia. The response of some growers was to bring all hiring decisions in-house. One grower reported, "we got stung really badly by a dodgy labourhire company — that was ripping off the workersand paying them the permanent rate but treatingthem like a casual; so when we audited payslipswe thought they were getting paid right".
Another grower told us, "I think labour hire is too dangerous and often attract the wrong kind of people. We don't want to work with contractors much because it's our responsibility to check everybody. Labour hire should be audited or closed up as an industry, otherwise it's too risky".
The exploitation of workers, regardless of their status in our country, under this government's watch is utterly and absolutely unacceptable. It is a perfect example of the growing list of policy failures from this Liberal government. If this government can't even be trusted to hold onto its own speaking notes, how can it be trusted to manage illegal plane arrivals entering Australia? It is absolutely clear that, on the issues of security and border protection, this chaotic and shambolic government cannot be trusted, and it seems pretty clear to me that this is precisely the reason why they have failed to answer Labor's questions.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:37): As Senator Keneally and Senator Smith have already outlined, the opposition has put this item up for debate today because of the need to again highlight the gross maladministration by this government, particularly in relation to the Home Affairs portfolio. This is something we have pursued for some time now. I remember in the previous term of this parliament I was involved as a member of estimates committees which explored Minister Dutton's maladministration of his portfolio, including such celebrated examples as the Paladin affair, where we saw hundreds of millions of dollars handed out to a company based in a beach shack at Kangaroo Island with limited oversight by Minister Dutton's department and with limited tendering processes, raising serious questions about where taxpayer dollars had been spent and what processes had been used to ensure taxpayers received value for money.
Here we are in a new term of this government with Minister Dutton again responsible for gross maladministration in his portfolio. It begins with his continued failure to respect the parliament by providing timely answers to appropriate, detailed questions on notice posed by Senator Keneally about serious matters in his portfolio, but it goes to the broader issues of maladministration which are the subject of these questions on notice. In the time available I'm going to deal with only one example of that maladministration which we are seeking information about through these questions on notice—that is, the incredible blowout in numbers of people coming to our country via plane outside the usual processes. We know the government has made a lot of political mileage in recent years over people coming to Australia by boat, but in the meantime we have seen a much bigger problem arise under this government's very nose in the form of people coming to Australia by plane.
Some of you are aware that I have a very long history, both in this parliament and as a lawyer, of defending the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. I join with Senator Keneally in putting on the record that Labor, unlike some members of this government, understands that it is not illegal to seek asylum—and I make no condemnation of the people who do that. But what I do condemn are the organised crime syndicates that you can often find behind the number of people who are coming to Australia by plane without proper processes and then staying on in Australia for a number of years.
The purpose of these organised crime syndicates is to exacerbate a problem that we have seen grow on this government's watch, and that is the gross exploitation of migrant workers from many parts of the world. This arose in the previous term of parliament and it has been going on for a long time. Unfortunately, we do see some unscrupulous operators, in horticulture and other industry sectors, who take advantage of migrant workers. In fact, Madam Deputy President, I know that this is something you have worked on personally both in this parliament and prior to your arrival in this parliament. Unfortunately, we are seeing a growing number of people being brought into this country by organised crime syndicates for the express purpose of exploiting them. They are putting them on farms and in other workplaces and paying them extremely low rates of money—$4 an hour is the sort of figure Senator Keneally was talking about—and forcing them to endure quite horrific conditions.
I will give you a couple of examples we have seen in my home state of Queensland. Fair Work inspectors investigated the alleged underpayment of 22 workers from Vanuatu who were employed to pick fruit and vegetables by a labour hire contractor operating at sites in the Lockyer Valley, Sunshine Coast and Bundaberg—all in Queensland. Ultimately, proceedings were commenced in the Federal Circuit Court, which found that the company involved, and one of its directors, had breached the Fair Work Act by failing to pay minimum wages and leave entitlements. Some workers gave evidence that they had been subjected to very poor conditions through their employment, including inadequate accommodation, a lack of food and water, the withholding of passports and personal belongings, and threats of deportation or police reports if they complained. It is that last point that migrant workers in particular are subject to. It often impedes them from making complaints about their treatment because they live in fear that they are going to be deported. As low as the money they are being paid is, often, due to circumstances in their own personal lives and their home environment, they are forced to stay here earning very little money and sending it back home. They are fearful of being deported if they makes any complaints.
Senator Keneally has referred to the fact that members of the government, including the member for La Trobe, Mr Wood, and the new member for Mallee, have highlighted the extreme exploitation we are seeing of people who are brought to Australia by plane by organised crime syndicates. And this government is not doing anything about it. Why is that the case? It is because Minister Dutton is too busy running his political wedges and playing politics rather than properly oversighting his portfolio. Rather than the maladministration we continue to see from Minister Dutton, we need him to take some action to stop this outbreak of exploitation of migrant workers and exploitation of our borders by organised crime syndicates.
We know that this government has a long history of failing migrant workers. I congratulate the efforts of a number of trade unions—in particular, the National Union of Workers, which is soon to merge and form a new union, the United Workers Union. They have done a fabulous job in standing up for the rights of these migrant workers. But, frankly, it shouldn't be up to unions to have to do this. This is something that has actually been caused by Minister Dutton's own maladministration. He is responsible for this issue. He has every opportunity to put in place the right policies and the right regulatory authorities to ensure that people aren't inappropriately being brought to this country and then exploited with the kinds of conditions that we are talking about. This is another gross example of maladministration on Minister Dutton's part. The sooner he stops playing politics and gets back to doing his job, the better.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:44): This afternoon's debate, where Senator Keneally has moved a motion to take note of the non-answers to questions on notice and the failure to answer questions in this place, is important. It is our job as senators to do our best to insist on those answers according to the rules of this place, but those answers are not being given in good spirit or in accordance with the expected conduct and responsibilities of this place. Why might this be so? We know that the government has a lot they don't want to reveal in this space.
Minister Dutton and Minister Coleman have absconded their portfolio responsibilities. All you find in the answers to questions on notice that you do receive is a revelation of the mismanagement of Australia's citizenship and visa systems, so it's little wonder they don't want to answer questions in this place. It is bad enough that the waiting time for the majority of visa applications has blown out. I wonder what the government might be holding onto in refusing to answer these questions in a timely way. I hope they come prepared to estimates, as I know that Senator Keneally will be expecting them to be. It is the right of this place to ask questions outside of estimates and for those questions to be answered within the expected time frames.
We have a government that has allowed the number of asylum claims to blow out. As Senator Keneally said: yes, people have an absolute right to claim asylum, but they need to be legitimate. The people smugglers have changed their business model. The government has not put the people smugglers out of business. There are more people coming in by air and claiming asylum than ever before but who are ultimately not found to be asylum seekers or to have a well-founded fear of persecution. The Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Jason Wood, has been forced to admit, through the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the last parliament:
Organised crime and illegitimate labour hire companies are using this loophole to bring out illegal workers who are often vulnerable and open to exploitation. This represents an orchestrated scam that enables these criminal elements to exploit foreign workers in Australia until their claims are finalised.
This is an appalling state of affairs that we have been fighting to shine the light on for many years. It has been the case in my time in estimates committees and on the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which looks at migration issues, that you have to fight tooth and nail for information on what's really going on for these vulnerable people. This particular report was tabled in the last parliament. There have been months and years of dog whistling by Minister Dutton and those opposite. The statistics are actually revealed in this report—but also over many, many years of work done by the Labor opposition, asking for the very data and statistics that Senator Keneally has rightfully asked for.
We know that in 2014-15, 8,652 people lodged applications for protection visas. In 2015-16, there were about 12½ thousand. In 2016-17, there were more than 18,000. In 2017-18, there were 27,000. In 2018-19, there were 24,000. So far this financial year there have been some 4,000 applications. We wouldn't know the answer to how many people are actually making applications for protection, be they valid or invalid, or the means by which they arrive, if it weren't for the power of this parliament to ask questions to find out what the government is doing. It is our responsibility to ask those questions, but you refuse to answer them. Why? Why do you refuse to answer them? Because the answers reveal your absolute mismanagement of these issues. There were nearly 96,000 protection visa applications under this term of government—under the tenure of Mr Morrison, when he was immigration minister, then under Mr Dutton and then under Mr Coleman. You don't want this kind of data revealed. Why? Because you prefer your small vox pop grabs where you can dog whistle and point the finger in an entirely different direction. But the data and the facts speak for themselves. All of these people arrived lawfully by air, but with an average of some 51 per day since 2014. All of this is evidenced in previous questions Labor has asked in this parliament.
It is little wonder that you are dragging your feet in being transparent and open with this place. Most of these applications are not made by people with genuine refugee claims. Eighty-four per cent, or 62 per cent of those applications, were refused by the department over the same period. What we've now found is evidence that, while their claims are being processed, they're here illegally accessing Australia's labour market. It's not like the government has done any work to piece these pictures together or to proactively ask, 'What's wrong with our immigration system and how are we going to reform it?' They have to be dragged kicking and screaming, day after day, through accountability in this place.
It's little wonder we have a department that has suffered through cuts and privatisation. They are about to continue to get busier as they deal with this increased case load. Some 4,000 people made a claim for protection between 1 July 2019 and 31 August—that is, 4,000 people in just 62 days. There's something very, very wrong going on here. Very few of these people are statistically shown to have valid asylum claims. We therefore have a system where our visa system is letting in people; it's not preventing them from buying a ticket and getting on an airplane to start with, which is how the visa system is supposed to work. They are arriving in Australia and making that claim when they get here, because that gives them a valid reason to stay. In the meantime, we know that many of these people are being exploited in Australia's labour market. They're essentially, in many cases, trafficked persons who are being trafficked because they are wanting to access Australia's labour market. They want to access Australia's labour market, so they consent to being trafficked in this way, but do they want to be exploited in the way they are being? No. There's no tourism pamphlet handed out that says, 'Come strawberry picking in Australia for $4 an hour.'
The government is on track to see more than 23,000 claims for asylum in the 2019-20 financial year, with time being taken to process these claims. In the meantime, people have access to Australia's labour market or do not have access but are working illegally. We are failing Australians by allowing huge blowouts in our migration system in this way.
We have many people who are awaiting their legitimate claims for asylum in our country to be processed. There are many legitimate claims for people who have fled dire circumstances and are trapped in Australia in uncertain conditions because this department is swamped by the mismanagement of this government in letting in by plane these many thousands of people who are essentially being trafficked here to access our labour market.
We have more than 200,000 people on bridging visas, and we reached a record-high level of 230,000 in March this year. That's a pretty epic number of people, given that we're a nation of some 25 million people. But these statistics have blown out, quarter on quarter, year on year, ever since Peter Dutton became the responsible minister back in 2014. From June 2018 to the next year, the number of people on bridging visas increased by 29,000. Since the coalition formed government in September 2013, that's increased by 93,000 people. That's why we now have this record-high figure of 230,000 people. I've sat in estimates looking at these statistics. The government pretends they are trying to clear this case load, but the way they're going about it is statistically and mathematically impossible. We've had a bit of talk about stats and maths today. There is simply nothing you are doing that is seriously addressing this problem. I've seen some of the arguments about what you're doing to accelerate processing, but actually it is doing nothing to drill down into this bridging visa issue specifically.
The government has attempted to falsely claim that a majority of people on bridging visas are part of the legacy case load—that is, the legacy case load of boat arrivals under Labor. As you like to say, you've stopped the boats. But in a report of July this year into that legacy case load it is very clear. It says that there are only 8,000 people with applications on hand or at review—8,000 out of 230,000. I'm sorry, it's all very well for you to keep pointing out, 'We've stopped the boats!' while thinking, 'But, for goodness sake, don't look over here at these 230,000 people on bridging visas,' or at the 50 people a day who are arriving in Australia to seek asylum, supposedly, many of whom are actually being trafficked in to access our labour market.
We have continued to have a government that is completely missing in action on these issues. As at July 2019, in the appeals process in the migration and refugee division, there were some 63,000 cases on hand; 40,000 of those were in migration and 23,000 in the 'other refugee' division. Malaysian-Chinese nationals made up a majority of these lodgements. Some of these people may not be genuine refugees and will have their claims rejected, as we've discussed. But when you look at the true purpose, at why they've sought to come here and claim that asylum, they are coming here to access our labour market, to work, and they are absolutely susceptible to exploitation as workers.
This exploitation is happening right around the nation. At the moment in Western Australia it is, quite happily, peak strawberry season. And as Senator Keneally said, when you pack fruit into your children's lunchboxes you like to take pride in ethical agricultural production in Australia. I know that our strawberries in Western Australia are grown locally, and I love them. However, it is very clear that the exploitation of workers is taking place in the metropolitan area, in the strawberry-growing areas of Western Australia, using exploited labour. Wanneroo is one of those locations. It's not an eligible regional postcode for the purposes of the working holiday-maker visa extension. This region is suffering because they're not an eligible area. They have this constantly rotating backpacker workforce. Just as you've trained someone up to pick strawberries, they have to leave and go and get another job somewhere else, because as a holiday-maker they're not entitled to stay longer than three months. It's clear that's what is going on in Wanneroo is that firms have been supplied undocumented workers or labour hire firms were not legally compliant in how they were paying workers. If you had a more sustainable workforce you would be able to do something about that.
I am very proud of my Labor colleagues in taking up the fight on this issue. It is not just these exploited workers that are suffering; it's everyone that is stuck in our overblown, overburdened immigration system who cannot get their paperwork done. Whether it's someone waiting for a parental visa, whether it's someone trying to have family reunion, there are so many people that we deal with in our offices every day whose lives are intimately affected by the decisions of the department of immigration. That burden would be a lot lighter if decisions could be made in a fair but, very importantly, timely manner. There is little prospect of things being timely with the kind of flooding of the immigration system that is taking place at the moment and the absolute mismanagement of it under this government.
So, as we head towards estimates next week, you can be sure that we will be very fired up about these issues. You can be sure that we will be seeking accountability from the government. These issues not only affect people inside immigration but also affect all of us in the sense that we have very real labour and working conditions that are undermined by this loophole in our immigration system that is allowing essentially what looks to be perhaps hundreds of thousands of workers potentially working without a valid asylum claim but who are essentially here accessing the labour market.
People 100 per cent have a right to seek asylum in our nation and for it to be properly assessed. But we have procedures in our nation to make sure that people get a visa before they arrive here if they need one. Where are those procedures? What on earth is happening? No wonder Senator Keneally is seeking your accountability on these questions. So have no doubt there will be a lot more work to do in this place, and within the parliamentary committee system as a whole, on these questions. Australians deserve answers and this Senate deserves them too.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (16:03): Accountability is the hallmark of parliament, and of course you would expect that questions put by Senator Kristina Keneally to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migration Services and Multicultural Affairs on 12 August 2019 would be answered. You would expect that there would be an attempt to turn around and answer some very serious questions that are confronting the immigration and visa system and challenges that we are facing this country.
In 2016 one of questions asked was: 'When in 2016 did the minister first become aware of the current surge in asylum seeker applications from citizens in Malaysia? When did the minister first become aware of the current surge of asylum seeker applications from citizens of China?' That's a very fundamental, critical question on how the government is responding to weaknesses that are clearly appearing within our visa system.
You then go to the government's talking points that were released on 14 October, much to their surprise. A government that have been in power for six years state in one of their talking points that their response to exploited workers—such as the ones that were talked about in the questions raised by Senator Kristina Keneally—should be, 'The exploitation of any worker in Australia is something we have zero tolerance for.' This is what's happening at the moment with regard to migrant wage theft. Two-thirds of migrant workers reported that their employer, at one point or another, failed to provide a payslip, with 44 per cent reporting that they have never received a payslip for their work. Twenty-eight per cent of workers in the hospitality industry had experienced their employer confiscating their passport. Almost a third of surveyed participants earned $12 per hour or less—some as little as $4. Of course, $12 per hour is approximately half the minimum wage for a casual employee. Almost half of the participants earned $15 per hour or less. These statistics are from the National Temporary Migrant Work Survey by the Migrant Worker Justice Initiative from the University of New South Wales and UTS in November 2017. We've seen a situation where migrant workers are grossly underpaid. In the case of penalty rates, between 45 and 76 per cent of workers are underpaid or not paid penalty rates. Fifty-one per cent of workers are not paid or are underpaid for overtime. Sixty per cent of workers do not have tax withheld by their employers. Thirty-nine per cent of workers have had entitlements withheld. The source of that statistic is the Ending wage theft report from the McKell Institute in March 2019.
But don't worry. The government have an answer—not an answer to questions; not an answer to the serious matters raised by Senator Keneally, 'The exploitation of any worker in Australia is something we have zero tolerance for.' In the 2018 Harvest Trail, where investigations were carried out by Fair Work, they issued 150 formal cautions and 132 infringement notices totalling $155,390. They then started going through a number of companies. These are just a few of the companies that they discovered were ripping off migrant workers: LetUsGrow Hydroponics Pty Ltd, where $37,781 was recovered for four employees; TDS International Investment, $92,381; $40,000 was recovered from Brownlow Enterprises; and Maroochy Sunshine, a $186,000 penalty against the company and a $41,300 penalty against sole director, Mr Bani. But has that had any effect in dealing with the thieves?
I recall John Howard saying—and, of course, we hear this from the conservatives too many times—'We will decide who comes into this country.' Minister Dutton and Prime Minister Morrison are in effect saying that criminals, wage thieves, organised crime participants and human traffickers will decide who comes into this country, because they're the ones who profit from it and the government's policies encourage it. There is lack of accountability and a lack of answers. It's because they simply don't care about what's happened to the Australian community. When the migrants are exploited, when wages are stolen and when criminal gangs operate, it steals from decent employers who employ people correctly; it steals from people who are doing the right thing; it steals from Australians who are looking for jobs. Fundamentally, this government have to be held to account for their obligations to the Australian community, their obligations to Australian workers and their obligations to migrant workers who find themselves working in this country. I always find it amusing when the government turns around and says—rightly, and I think we all share this view—that when people come to this country, and particularly when visa holders come to this country, there is an opportunity to have quid quo pro. That sense is about people having a good experience here. People, particularly students, that might want to carry on other careers back in their home countries will have an experience about what Australia is like. But what Australia is like under this government is wage theft. What Australia is like under this government is people not turning around and making a difference, let alone answering the questions that can make the difference. When you answer the questions, it drives results and it drives accountability. That is what this parliament is for.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:10): I just want to say a few words in finishing off this take note debate. I want to thank Senator Marielle Smith, Senator Sheldon, Senator Watt and Senator Pratt for their participation in this debate, the observations they have made and the contributions they have made to this take note debate. I would also like to put on the record my appreciation to Senator Ciccone, who hosted and organised the round table that we held about aeroplane arrivals and labour shortages and labour demand in the horticulture sector in Shepparton only last week. I want to put on the record my appreciation for the work that he has done in advocating for migrant workers, exploited workers and, indeed, all Australian workers to have fair wages and conditions.
I began this take note debate making some observations about maths. While it was a perhaps a more lighthearted start to this conversation, the subject is incredibly serious. I do acknowledge Senator Sheldon for his contribution in bringing this home to the seriousness of the problem and some of the devastating maths and some of the devastating numbers that affect exploited workers in Australia. Again, as I said in my remarks, this is not the fair go that we understand Australia to be. The condition of exploited workers, particularly in the horticulture sector, is not something that most Australians would tolerate, as Senator Pratt observed, or find ethical. I do think that the parents of Australia would find it quite concerning if they had information on where the fruit and veg they buy for their families comes from, who picks it and the exploitative conditions under which those people work.
Yesterday the government started the day by accidentally leaking their talking points to the entire press gallery. They finished last night by losing a vote in the Senate on national security legislation. Today they have proved that they cannot answer even basic questions about asylum seekers or about the numbers who are arriving through our airports. Indeed, they can offer no plan for how they are going to address this problem, how they are going to secure our borders or how they are going to protect, as Senator Sheldon said, those people who come to our country to have a positive experience. Nor are they prepared to do much to work with the horticultural sector to ensure a steady and fair supply of workers or do much about lifting wages and conditions across the economy. They seem intent on allowing to develop under their watch an economy that is based on a working population made up of temporary migrants who are paid extremely low wages and subject to exploitative conditions.
Right now we have two million people in Australia who have no path to permanency and no stake in the future of the country. They are locked out of the wages conditions laws that protect the rest of the country. Based on the government's own projections on temporary migration, that is going to increase to three million people. That changes the composition of our country. That changes the composition of our economy. All of us should care very deeply about the path this government is taking us on, because, whether we are here on a visa, whether we are here permanently, whether we are working with good wages and conditions, whether we are struggling, or whether we have children or not, we all have a stake in the future of this country and an economy that is built on people being able to access a living wage, protections at work, safety and fair work conditions. This is really what is at stake here.
Before I wrap up, I would like to acknowledge another maths statistic, and this one is also not very happy. I would ask the indulgence of the chamber in letting me switch subjects slightly. Today is international Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. I know there is a motion before the Senate later tonight, and I acknowledge that it is supported across the crossbench and the government. The depressing statistic about that is that six babies are stillborn every day in Australia. There are 2,200 stillborn babies a year, and that is a number that has not changed in 20 years, despite all of the advances that we have made in this country in terms of maternal health.
I'd like to acknowledge in the public gallery the director of the Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth, Dr Vicki Flenady, and her team, who were here earlier. Earlier today Vicki and her team, with Minister Hunt and Mr Chris Bowen, the shadow minister for health, launched the Safer Baby Bundle. I want to end on a more positive form of maths, and it is this: the Safer Baby Bundle has set a target of reducing the number of preventable stillbirths by 20 per cent. That would mean saving some 200 babies' lives every year in Australia. I am quite hopeful that, with a range of other measures as well, we can surpass that. The Safer Baby Bundle launched today with funding from the government, backed by recommendations of this Senate. This very Senate's stillbirth inquiry is what has led to today's announcement. I am really quite pleased that Vicki is in the chamber today, and I am very delighted that today we launched the Safer Baby Bundle. I thank all members of the Senate, because it was your support for the Senate select committee into stillbirth that made the Safer Baby Bundle possible.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Employment
Vocational Education and Training
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (16:17): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne), the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Senator Cash) and the Minister for Youth and Sport (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
Can I just begin by saying what another disappointing question time it was. We couldn't get clear answers from those on the other side whatsoever. Australia's in the midst of a skills crisis brought about by the Liberal government's $3 billion in cuts to TAFE and training, and what we get from the other side is a little lecture about a lecture. I don't think the speaking notes were leaked today, but I'm presuming that was in the speaking notes because I noticed a couple of ministers on that side used the same line about how they won't be lectured to. Well, let me tell you this: our asking questions about skills and apprenticeships and traineeships is not lecturing; it's asking questions. And, if we ask questions, we should get an answer.
As a Tasmanian, I know that the Morrison government's cuts to TAFE and training have hit Tasmania particularly hard. Premier Will Hodgman and Treasurer Peter Gutwein are crowing about a so-called golden age in Tasmania, but I can tell you that few Tasmanians share their optimism. We've lost 1,190 apprentices and trainees since the Liberals came to government federally. That's a drop of 12.5 per cent. But the minister failed to highlight this in her answers yesterday, and today she once again dodged the question when she was asked why she didn't answer that or put that in her answers yesterday. So the government is pretty good at dodging questions but not very good at giving answers. There is a difference, and the people of Tasmania, in particular, deserve to know why there's been such a reduction in trainees and apprentices.
We know that the skills shortage is particularly acute in Tasmania. Tasmania's lost 5,600 full-time jobs over the past 12 months. The trouble for Tasmanians is that we're faced with Liberal governments at both the state level and the federal level, and neither of them believe in TAFE, and they never have. Youth unemployment is 14.3 per cent in Tasmania, and it's harder for young people to get work in Tasmania than in any other state—
Senator Duniam interjecting—
Senator BILYK: and I must be hitting the right note here because Senator Duniam's trying to interject. It's either that or he's talking to himself. I think he's actually trying to interject. Senator Duniam, you've been here a while now. You know my line on that. I've worked with three-year-olds. I worked with three-year-olds for 12 years.
Senator Duniam interjecting—
Senator BILYK: You can interject all you want, I still don't hear, to be honest. Just this week, just now as we do this, in Tasmania, Premier Hodgman will not commit to not cutting the Launceston CBD campus of TAFE, which is under threat of closure. Even today, Premier Hodgman would not respond to that. He would not rule out the closures. It's fairly strange, I think, that Senator Hodgman will back a proposal to move the university in Launceston but he won't come out and say he won't cut the TAFE out of Launceston. I don't know where, really, he gets his advice from. I'm saying he really needs to look at what he's doing. To be honest, I'd be interested to find out what plans he's got for the building in Launceston that he's planning to move TAFE out of. Under Will Hodgman's government, TasTAFE has been plagued by course cancellations and delays, chronic staff shortages and inadequate infrastructure.
I'll say this again and again: Tasmania has lost 5,600 full-time jobs in the past year and has a youth unemployment rate that is so much higher than anywhere else. Given these appalling statistics, northern Tasmania needs a strong investment in infrastructure for TAFE, including maintaining that city campus. Instead of postponing and underresourcing trades and traineeships, both the state and federal governments must commit to complete courses in TAFE, in Tasmania, for the benefit of Tasmanians.
Let's quickly look at what's happening with Tasmanian women, who are not taking up apprenticeships or traineeships. Data shows there were 3,345 females in training in 2014 and, as of September 2018, there were 2,600 apprentices and trainees. So, no matter how you guys on that side want to spin it, that's a pretty big loss. This government, at both the state and federal level, in regard to TAFE, in regard to apprenticeships, in regard to traineeships, has completely dropped the ball. You're leaving Tasmanians unskilled and you're leaving them unable to get work. And that is simply not acceptable.
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (16:22): It is extremely hypocritical for the Labor Party to be criticising the Liberal Party and the LNP about youth jobs. In my home state of Queensland, the Queensland state Labor government has shut down three agricultural colleges, in Dalby, Emerald and Hinchinbrook. Shame! What better way to create jobs for the youth and to look after the environment—and they've done this in the middle of one of the worst droughts in the last century. Dalby's on its knees; Emerald's on its knees. And what do you do? You shut down agricultural colleges. You've got the hide to come in here and criticise the Liberal government for investing $3 billion in the VET sector. Compare that to what federal Labor did in 2012-13. They took away 85,000 apprenticeships. We won't be taking any lectures on skills from Labor, after spending the past six years fixing the mess that they've left behind in our VET sector.
The greatest fall in apprenticeship numbers on record occurred in 2012-13 when the number of apprenticeships and trainee commencements fell by 85,000 places in a single year. Senator Wong, the member for Sydney, the member for McMahon and the Leader of the Opposition were sitting around the cabinet table at that time and did nothing. The member for Rankin—Jimmy—was chief of staff to the Treasurer and did nothing. In over just two years, all the same faces opposite gutted over $1.2 billion from employer incentives to take on apprenticeships. Nine times in two years the Labor Party wielded the knife against apprenticeship incentives. Every time they needed a cut, they went straight for apprenticeships.
This is the consequence of a Labor government that could not control its spending. When the Leader of the Opposition was Deputy Prime Minister, he, along with Senator Wong as finance minister and Mr Bowen as Treasurer, cut over $240 million out of apprenticeship incentives in a single year. How much noise did the member for Cooper make at the time, while leading the ACTU? None. But this is just the beginning of the mess that Labor left behind, the mess that has taken us six years to fix.
Of all the damage that the Labor Party did to the vocational education sector, nothing did more damage than their VET FEE-HELP changes. And wasn't that a debacle! This program saw thousands of students exploited by unscrupulous providers as a direct result of Labor's poorly designed reforms to this program. Since 2016, over 37,000 students have had VET FEE-HELP debts re-credited by the Commonwealth. That's right; we've been the ones to bail out our youth here. We are the ones looking after the youth after they were thrown under a bus by Labor. No government, in good conscience, could allow this behaviour to flourish. But the Labor Party let it happen.
Repairing this disastrous program has been an ongoing agenda item across all three terms of this government. The total cost to date of repairing this unconscionable program is just under $250 million. And fixing this problem is a cost to the taxpayer. However, this government is committed to ensuring Australians have the right skills for the workforce of today and the future. This financial year, we are investing over $3 billion in VET. That includes $1.5 billion to be given to the states and territories every year through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development specific-purpose payments. Despite that, despite Queensland receiving generous amounts of money from the federal government, they still can't keep those agricultural colleges open. They always talk about the environment. You made a big song and dance today about jobs for youth. Where were you when the agricultural colleges were being closed down? Nowhere. You didn't care.
The federal government is putting $1.1 billion to fund the government's own skills programs, including employer incentives and support for Australian apprenticeships. The government's skills packages are contributing to an increase in Commonwealth funding to VET over the forward estimates. Over the period from 2018 to 2022, funding from the Commonwealth to the states remained stable at around $1.7 billion a year. Funding for the Commonwealth's own programs is expected to increase each year over the budget forward estimates to over $1.3 billion by 2022-23. We have commenced work to establish a new skills— (Time expired)
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (16:27): In question time today, with Senator Colbeck's answers to questions, the plight of Australia's young people was well and truly revealed. Australia currently has a very high rate of youth unemployment, yet all the government can do is point to programs that are demonstrably failing. Take, for example, the question that Senator Smith asked this afternoon in relation to the rate of youth unemployment. We have a growing rate of youth unemployment in many places around the nation. The government claims they have injected 100,000 new jobs for young people into the system over the last 12 months. Well, the distressing fact is that there are 260,000 young Australians who are unemployed. Of course, in that period, people have moved in and out of the labour market. With 260,000 young people unemployed and more than 600,000 unemployed, those 100,000 jobs will in no way address that issue, particularly as young people age and a new generation of young people move out of their school years. There is a structural problem here that is growing, and it is deeply connected to other trends in the economy.
What happens when youth unemployment rises? It is very much interlinked with wage stagnation in Australia. As the Grattan Institute report quoted in these questions reveals:
Slower wage growth particularly hurts young people. Unlike older people, they are less likely to have other sources of income … and so rely more on wages.
People who enter the workforce at a time of low wage growth are particularly hurt because they miss out on the stronger wage progress people normally make in their first decade in the workforce.
This government has been giving excuses and twiddling its thumbs on the question of wage growth in Australia, frankly, for years now. You'll point out that you've created more jobs and that the economy is continuing to grow, but you absolutely do not deal with the economic fundamentals in question—that is, that people's take-home household income is declining and wage growth has declined—and you have no strategy for addressing these.
Indeed, in the very PaTH program that you have been lauding in your answers and that we've critiqued in our questions, you can see that only 30 per cent of participants have been offered a job at the end of their internship. That is a disgraceful set of figures and shows that this program really isn't working. In this case what's likely to be happening is that employers are relying on the wage subsidy in order to justify taking on these placements. I can see a role for wage subsidies, but decent and reliable employment has to be available to young people and all Australians so they can meet their cost-of-living needs. But what we see in Australia are a growing number of young people who are in economic distress and cannot meet their basic cost of living. The very same report, the Grattan Institute's Generation gap: ensuring a fair go for younger Australians, talked about pretty basic issues like food security, about the number of young people who don't have enough income to feed themselves. These issues are intrinsically interlinked. (Time expired)
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (16:33): It really is quite rich that we have had both a question time and a take note period in which those opposite have carried on about this government's performance on the youth employment and skills front when their record is something about which they should hang their heads in shame. Let's get a few facts on the record, because, quite frankly, they speak for themselves. We heard an awful lot about apprenticeships in the course of question time today. They carried on as though apprenticeships were high under Labor and have plummeted under the coalition, and nothing could be further from the truth. The greatest fall in apprentice numbers on record—not just now, not last week, not last year; the entire time we've been keeping track of these things—occurred under the former Labor government in 2012-13, when the number of apprenticeships and trainee commencements fell by 85,000—
Senator Scarr: 85,000?
Senator STOKER: 85,000, Senator Scarr, in a single year. Senator Wong and the member for McMahon were members of cabinet at the time. In that very same single year they cut over $240 million out of apprenticeships. And did we hear them bleating and carrying on as they have been today? No. It's one standard for them and a different standard for everybody else. That's the kind of two-faced hypocrisy that we, as Australian people, have simply had enough of.
I could go on for an awfully long time about the damage they did to that sector. The changes they made to VET FEE-HELP saw thousands of students being exploited by unscrupulous providers, and they were a direct result of the poor governance that existed in Labor's poorly designed reforms to that program. Those reforms have led, since 2016, to the Commonwealth having to re-credit VET FEE-HELP loans to 37,000 students, so egregious was their exploitation. These were vulnerable students, systematically exploited while dodgy providers, who flourished under the no-rules environment that the Labor Party had in place, pocketed the lot. No sensible, responsible government could possibly allow that to flourish, yet that's exactly what they did.
So we have reformed that program, and we are continuing to drive improvement in that sector. Since we started making changes in that area in 2014-15, over $1.8 billion has been saved each and every year. That's what good governance will do for you. That is what an approach that cares about outcomes for people who are seeking work will do. With about 300,000 additional jobs created by the private sector in the year 2018-19, we have seen employment grow by 2.6 per cent. That might not sound like an enormous number, but it's well above the 1½ per cent growth forecast that was in the budget, and it is accompanied by a whole range of economic indicators that stand out as leading the way while the rest of the world is struggling with difficult economic headwinds—across the economy. We'd love for wages to be enormous, but here's the key indicator: they increased in excess of inflation. Inflation was steady at 1.6 per cent, and wages increased by 2.3 per cent. In circumstances in which there is a small increase in wages, Australians are, in real-wage terms, getting ahead.
The way we need to look at maximising opportunity for Australians is to ensure that their cost of living doesn't get too high, that they can afford the cost of all the things around them and that there are lots and lots of job opportunities from which to choose. That is exactly what the coalition government is providing. We are doing it day in, day out. Whether by boosting apprenticeships by 85,000 or by subsidising and incentivising key skills shortage areas—the PaTH program—we are bringing opportunity to Australians who need it most. (Time expired)
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (16:38): What we've heard this afternoon from this government is that it is a government that has no plan for good jobs, has no plan to support the TAFE training system, has no plan to get wages moving in this country and has no plan to create opportunity for young Australians to get into work. When asked how the government has managed to preside over a skills shortage and wage stagnation at the same time—which is quite the achievement—Senator Payne said that the government is 'absolutely committed' on skills shortages. The government says that the government is investing in vocational training. And when asked about chronically low wage growth in this country under this government, Minister Payne said that there's no problem, that everything's okay. She says Australians are looking forward to a future of opportunity. Well, yes they are—but not while this government is in office, because the reality of their record is not quite as rosy as the government would have you believe.
It truly seems that they think that if they can say, 'Everything is fine,' enough times then it might just become true, but the truth is that this is a government with absolutely no plan. They have no plan to deal with the significant issues facing our economy and facing our country. Their lack of leadership is really hurting Australians today, because wage growth is at record lows. In some sectors, it's not just that people's wages aren't going up; they are actually going backwards in real terms. With the most recent wage growth figures at just 2.3 per cent, this government's record on wages growth is absolutely abysmal.
Economists, and just about every other person in the country, are screaming out that wage growth needs boosting. We need a plan to get wages moving in this country, and we need that both to kickstart our flagging, faltering economy and to help Australian families that are struggling with the rising cost of living. Everything is going up in this country at the moment, except for people's wages, and families are struggling, but you wouldn't know that from the answers that the government gave us today.
It's obvious that this government just doesn't care. It didn't care when it stood by and allowed over 700,000 retail, fast-food, hospitality and pharmacy workers to have their penalty rates cut—penalty rate cuts that have not delivered a single new job in this country, despite the government's claims, and penalty rate cuts that cut the pay of some of Australia's lowest paid workers.
Let's think about the answers that Senator Cash gave to questions about apprenticeships today. When asked what's happening to apprenticeships, which have dropped by 12 per cent in Tasmania under this government, Senator Cash took the opportunity to talk about Senator Watt and to gloat again about the election result. She showed absolutely no care for apprentices in Tasmania or around the country today.
What can I say about Senator Colbeck's attempted answers to our questions? When asked about youth unemployment blowing out to almost 12 per cent, and hundreds of thousands of young Australian workers who are underemployed, the aptly named minister for youth, Senator Colbeck, said, 'Everything's under control,' but everything is not under control with this government. In fact, this government has cut $3 billion from our TAFE and training sector. Today, we have 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when the Liberals were elected in 2013. They have cut and cut and cut. Today in Australia there are around 260,000 unemployed young people and many, many more thousands of underemployed young people. It's time that this government got a plan to get wages moving and support young workers today.
Question agreed to.
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:43): 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 Hanson-Young today relating to water resources in New South Wales.
I rise today to reflect on the answers given to this place from Senator Cormann, representing the Prime Minister, to the questions that I was asking in relation to this government's proposal to spend more taxpayers' money building more dams in places such as New South Wales. And while I'm standing here on my feet, we know, of course, that the New South Wales state government have just announced that they are going to move ahead with watering down—excuse the pun—and slashing environmental protections and assessments to build new dams and new pipelines, all in a big rush to look as though they're doing something in relation to the crippling drought, which we're experiencing throughout the Murray-Darling Basin.
Of course, the big problem here is that simply building dams doesn't make it rain. Building dams does not create more water. In fact, we are going to see this government spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money building dams that will further destroy the Murray-Darling Basin river system and further destroy the farming communities throughout the basin, because it won't be the community and it won't be the river that get access to this water that is harvested and stored. We know that because the rules in New South Wales around allocation are an absolute joke. They give priority to big corporate irrigation over the needs of the community and the environment. So we're going to see buckets of taxpayers' money spent on dams that are not going to be assessed for their environmental impact. There's no cost-benefit analysis. The water is going to be harvested and then in three or four years time we will be back to where we were. This is an absolute disaster.
We are facing a continually drying climate. We are in the midst of a climate emergency, and all we get from this government is 'pray for rain'. That's the only plan they have. Building dams won't make it rain and having a drought plan with no plan for climate change means you've got nothing at all. This government is up 'crap creek' without a paddle right now. There's no water in the river and they can't get themselves out of it, so they're willing to just splash around money and pretend, hoping that the community—the farmers and the taxpayers—won't notice. It is an absolute disgrace on the part of this government, despite all of the heartache that is going on in river communities. We have towns that don't have clean water. You can't turn on the tap and take a glass of water to drink. We've got farmers, small-family farmers, who don't have enough water for their stock or their crops. Meanwhile, big corporate irrigators continue to store water and irrigate at the expense of everybody else.
The river is in crisis. We saw the millions of fish that were dead in the Menindee lake system over summer. Just in the last 48 hours another mass fish death has been sighted, and it's not even December yet—we are in October. This summer is going to be hotter and drier. We know that. That's what the scientists are telling us. That's what the Bureau of Meteorology is telling us. It is going to be the summer of death—the summer of death for the Murray-Darling Basin and for the communities that are given no hope by this government, who are saying: 'Just wait a few years. We'll spend the taxpayers' money and build some dams, and, fingers crossed, if we pray hard enough it will start raining.' It is not a plan for drought. It is not a plan for climate action. Instead, we are just hanging our family farms and river communities out to dry, all the while doing the bidding of big corporate interests by slashing and burning environmental regulation and spending taxpayers' money while we do it. I can guarantee that in three or four years time the river is going to be in a worse situation, not a better one, because this government did nothing about it.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (16:48): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Seselja for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:48): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Urquhart for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) since Senator Waters' last motion on this issue in the Senate, there have been a further 9 women killed by violence in Australia, taking the overall national toll for 2019 to 44, as reported by Counting Dead Women Australia from Destroy The Joint,
(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 week 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 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 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 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 don't 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 on domestic violence in Australia, tabled on 20 August 2015, and
(vi) maintain and publish an official real-time national toll of women killed by violence in Australia. (general business notice of motion no. 184)
Senator Colbeck to move on the next day of sitting—That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to aged care, and for related purposes. Aged Care Legislation Amendment (New Commissioner Functions) Bill 2019.
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 61 local councils, representing almost 6 million Australians, have declared a climate emergency, and
(ii) these local councils represent a wide range of regional, suburban and major city areas in every state and territory in Australia, including Canterbury-Bankstown City Council in New South Wales, Ballarat City Council in Victoria, Launceston City Council in Tasmania, Port Lincoln City Council in South Australia and Denmark Shire Council in Western Australia; and
(b) congratulates these local councils for declaring a climate emergency. (general business notice of motion no. 185)
Senator Polley:To move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Australian Labor Party (Labor) is the only party of government that is committed to real action on climate change,
(ii) investing in renewable energy is the only way to ensure a responsible energy mix is achieved in Australia, and
(iii) strong climate action is needed, to protect the prosperity of future generations of Australians and to meet our international obligations under the Paris climate change accords;
(b) acknowledges that any responsible government must modernise our economy and adapt to inevitable climate impacts;
(c) recognises that:
(i) Labor's approach to climate change policy will continue to be guided by the best science available, and be underpinned by Labor values of equity and fairness, and
(ii) Labor's approach will focus on the development of policies that will not only cut pollution, but ensure we maximise the jobs and economic opportunities of modernising our economy;
(d) understands that every Australian deserves a government that looks to the future and makes the necessary policy reforms and investments to secure that future;
(e) notes that projects, such as the proposed hydrogen production facility at Bell Bay, should have bipartisan support;
(f) further notes that Tasmania is a renewable energy leader but that Australia cannot get left behind by other countries, such as Japan and South Korea;
(g) understands that Tasmania Hydrogen can provide one-quarter of Northern Tasmania's export growth over the next 10 years;
(h) recognises that, once complete, the proposed facility would use renewable energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen through a process called electrolysis, with the product then able to be sold as liquid hydrogen, or combined with nitrogen to create ammonia; and
(i) notes that the regional development ramifications for a project like this should be recognised, including an estimated 500 to 1000 jobs which could be created, and that the flow-on effect to other businesses and service providers would be ongoing. (general business notice of motion no. 186)
Senator Roberts to move on the next day of sitting—The Senate notes that:
(a) valid scientific data proving cause-and-effect is vital as the only credible justification for policies claimed to be based on science;
(b) the following are often used today in our communities as substitutes for science, yet are not science:
(i) populist views and anecdotes about weather events,
(ii) short-term perspectives of cycles out of context,
(iii) unsubstantiated claims of 'having the science',
(iv) name calling,
(v) claims of consensus,
(vi) so-called peer-reviewed literature,
(vii) appeals to authority,
(viii) academic fallacies, and
(ix) emotional claims or statements; and
(c) the ultimate arbiter of science is empirical scientific evidence, being:
(i) objectively verified hard data as physical measurements and/or physical observations, and
(ii) presented in a logical framework proving cause and effect. (general business notice of motion no. 187)
Senator Stoker to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) recognises that dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia are learning disabilities that are experienced by one in 10 Australians;
(b) observes that October is National Dyslexia Awareness Month;
(c) notes that undiagnosed or unassisted dyslexia is correlated with lower levels of education, lower socioeconomic status, poorer physical and mental health, reduced literacy, and higher incarceration rates;
(d) commends the work of the Dear Dyslexia Foundation in helping Australians understand this condition; and
(e) encourages the federal, state and territory governments to consider and adapt to the needs of dyslexic people when developing education, health, technology and employment policies. (general business notice of motion no. 188)
The Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale):To move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that it is Anti-Poverty Week from 13 to 19 October 2019, and that 17 October 2019 is the United Nations Day for the Eradication of Poverty;
(b) recognises that:
(i) the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) reports that the mortality rate for the poorest Australians is 1 times as high as for people in the highest socioeconomic group, and that the most economically disadvantaged Australians live on average, up to 5 years less than the wealthiest,
(ii) around 41% of people in the lowest annual household income group avoid or delay a visit to a dentist due to cost, which puts them at greater risk of more severe poor oral or general health in the future, as well as reducing their ability to find employment and housing, and
(iii) people living in rural or regional Australia, including First Nations peoples, are most likely to be impacted by poverty, have the worst health outcomes and face the greatest financial barriers to accessing health care;
(c) notes that:
(i) around 1 million people in Australia rely on the inadequate rate of Newstart and Youth Allowance,
(ii) this year, a Monash University study found that Newstart recipients are six times more likely to face poor health outcomes, and twice as likely to be hospitalised than wage earners, and
(iii) the Australian Medical Association has backed the call for a raise to Newstart, recognising that the payment is insufficient for someone with chronic or other illness; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to do more to address the social and economic determinants of health, including immediately increasing Newstart and Youth Allowance. (general business notice of motion no. 189)
The Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (Senator Hanson):To move on the next day of sitting—That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to ensure the viability of Australia's dairy industry, and for related purposes. Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019. (general business notice of motion no. 190)
The Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale):To move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that the very first step in dealing with the climate crisis is that no new coal, oil or gas projects can be built;
(b) notes the in-depth research by the International Energy Agency that global carbon budgets cannot afford a single new coal, oil or gas project to proceed in order to stay below 1 degrees of warming, as committed to under the Paris Agreement; and
(c) concludes that the Adani coalmine in Queensland, fracking the Beetaloo Gas Basin in the Northern Territory and drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight are incompatible with any declaration of a climate emergency. (general business notice of motion no. 191)
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that this is Anti-Poverty Week 2019;
(b) recognises that many single parent families are living in poverty;
(c) notes that:
(i) according to the Foodbank Hunger Report 2019, single parent households are most likely to experience food insecurity at a rate of 47%,
(ii) since 2013, the rate of poverty among unemployed single parents has risen from 35% to 59%, and
(iii) single parent families have a poverty rate of 32% which is a major source of child poverty;
(d) acknowledges that one of the keys to ending child poverty and helping single parents out of poverty is by raising the rate of Newstart; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to help reduce the poverty rate of single parent families by immediately increasing Newstart and related payments. (general business notice of motion no. 192)
Senators McAllister and Pratt to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) climate change is a significant threat to our economy, natural environment, farming communities and national security,
(ii) Australia's annual emissions have been rising in recent years,
(iii) as a global problem, the solution to climate change requires concerted international cooperation to limit the production of greenhouse gasses,
(iv) as the only global agreement designed to address climate change, the Paris accords must play a central role in addressing climate change,
(v) the Paris accords require signatory countries to deliver actions consistent with keeping the global temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1 degrees celsius,
(vi) based on the latest scientific advice, the world is currently on track for warming of above 3 degrees, and efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions need to be strengthened to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts, and
(vii) as a result of the threat posed by climate change, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Portugal, Argentina and the Republic of Ireland have declared a climate emergency; and
(b) affirms that:
(i) Australia remains committed to delivering on its obligations under the Paris accords,
(ii) failing to meet the goals of the Paris accords would have unprecedented and devastating environmental, economic, societal and health impacts for Australia, and
(iii) the threat posed by climate change on the future prosperity and security of Australia and the globe constitutes a climate change emergency. (general business notice of motion no. 193)
Senator Watt to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Federal Government signed a contract with the company Paladin that originally cost the Australian taxpayer $423 million,
(ii) Paladin was granted the contract – worth $20 million a month – without a competitive tender,
(iii) when the Federal Government first signed the contract with Paladin, the company was based out of a beach shack on Kangaroo Island,
(iv) this contract has been subject to an audit by Ernst & Young, and is currently the subject of an audit by the Auditor-General,
(v) the Federal Government extended this contract in June for a further 6 months – increasing the total cost of the contract to the Australian taxpayer to over half a billion dollars, and
(vi) this extension was granted despite:
(A) Paladin's managing director being removed from his duties after the firm failed to comply with a direction from the Department of Home Affairs,
(B) the contract being labelled 'high risk' by Ernst & Young, and
(C) Paladin being fined more than 3700 times in a 12 month period for failing to meet minimum service standards; and
(b) condemns the Federal Government for their incompetence in handling the Paladin contacts, and their contempt for the Australian taxpayer. (general business notice of motion no. 194)
Postponement
Business was postponed as follows:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Roberts for 16 October 2019, proposing the disallowance of the ASIC Corporations (Banking Code of Practice - Revocation of 2018 Approval) Instrument 2019/662 and ASIC Corporations (Approval of Banking Code of Practice) Instrument 2019/663, postponed till 12 November 2019.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senators Siewert and McKim for 16 October 2019, proposing the disallowance of the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019, postponed till 12 November 2019.
General business notice of motion no. 168 standing in the name of Senators Faruqi and Waters for today, relating to abortion reform, postponed till 16 October 2019.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:48): I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 181, standing in my name for today, until the next sitting day.
Leave granted.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:49): by leave—I move:
That Senator Urquhart be granted leave of absence for today for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:49): by leave—I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 162 standing in my name for today, proposing an order for the production of documents.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
General business notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Roberts for 16 October to 12 November 2019.
General business notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Siewert for 16 October to 12 November 2019.
General business notice of motion no. 168 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi for today until 16 October 2019.
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Policy, regulatory, taxation, administrative and funding priorities for Australian shipping—from 5 December 2019 to the Wednesday of the first sitting week in June 2020.
The PRESIDENT (16:50): I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business. Unless anyone objects, I will take them in an order that puts the more contentious elements towards the end, if that's possible.
MOTIONS
Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Eating Disorders Capping) Determination 2019
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:50): I move:
That, in accordance with subsection 1 OB(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Eating Disorders Capping) Determination 2019 made under subsection 10B(l) of the Act on 10 September 2019.
Question agreed to.
World Day Against the Death Penalty
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (16:51): Before moving general business notice of motion no. 161, I ask that the names of Senators Abetz, Van, McAllister, Lines and Watt be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Abetz, Van, McAllister, Lines and Watt, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that 10 October 2019 was World Day Against the Death Penalty,
(ii) that the aim of the 2019 World Day Against the Death Penalty is to raise awareness of the rights of children whose parents have been sentenced to death or executed, and
(iii) the bi-partisan position of Australian Governments over many years in their continued opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances for all people, and their commitment to pursuing the universal abolition of the death penalty through all avenues available; and
(b) acknowledges the Australian Government's Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty, and supports the Strategy's statement of intent: 'Australia opposes the death penalty in all circumstances for all people. We support the universal abolition of the death penalty and are committed to pursuing this goal through all the avenues available to us.'.
Question agreed to.
Mental Health
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:51): At the request of Senator Marielle Smith, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that it was National Mental Health Week from 5 to 12 October 2019, National Headspace Day on 9 October 2019 and World Mental Health Day on 10 October 2019;
(b) recognises that:
(i) in Australia around 950,000 young Australians (12 to 25) will be affected by a mental health issue each year,
(ii) Headspace has been instrumental in assisting young Australians to strengthen their wellbeing and manage their mental health,
(iii) Headspace has assisted 520,000 young people since it was established in 2006, and
(iv) more needs to be done to tackle the mental health crisis in Australia; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to take action to reduce the stigma that sadly still surrounds mental health conditions, explore greater investment opportunities in mental health and move ahead on delivering the new Headspace centres it promised during the election campaign.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:52): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Australian government is doing all that is mentioned in the motion. The mental wellbeing of Australians is a priority for the Morrison government in the 2019-20 budget. We've committed a record $736 million for mental health, including $503.1 million for our youth and Indigenous mental health and suicide prevention plan. This includes $111 million to expand our headspace network by 30 sites and $152 million to reduce headspace waiting times. By raising mental health to being a key pillar of the health system and providing record funding, expected to reach a record $5.3 billion this year alone, we are tackling stigma and delivering more of the frontline services that safeguard the mental health of all Australians.
Question agreed to.
Commonwealth Rent Assistance
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:53): I, and also on behalf of Senators Dodson and Siewert, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Anti-Poverty Week runs from 13 to 19 October 2019,
(ii) the Productivity Commission has found that two-thirds of low income renters in Australia are in rental stress – spending more than 30% of their income on rent,
(iii) 170,000 Australian households are left with less than $35 a day after covering their rent, and
(iv) the Productivity Commission has stated that Commonwealth Rent Assistance has not kept up with rising rents; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to review the adequacy of Commonwealth Rent Assistance.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:53): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government understands that having a roof over your head and food on the table is crucial to the welfare of all Australians. That's why we spend $4.6 billion in Commonwealth Rent Assistance and provide states and territories more than $1.5 billion a year, through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, to support their delivery of key services as well as invest approximately $300 million annually in the National Rental Affordability Scheme as part of our comprehensive approach to social security and welfare.
Question agreed to.
Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:54): At the request of Senators Keneally, Bilyk, McCarthy, Lambie, Waters, Hughes and Polley, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) today marks International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day,
(ii) on this day, parents, families and friends will memorialise babies they have lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death, and
(iii) Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day is an opportunity to officially acknowledge the losses experienced by parents and families across Australia;
(b) acknowledges that in Australia:
(i) it is estimated that one in four pregnancies result in miscarriage – that is 103,000 every year,
(ii) in 2018, 2419 lives were lost due to stillbirth or newborn death,
(iii) despite medical advancements, the stillbirth rate has not changed in two decades, and
(iv) the rate of stillbirth and newborn death is 20% higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
(c) acknowledges the bipartisan Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education tabled its report on 4 December 2018 which contained 16 recommendations;
(d) congratulates the Federal Government for this week's launch of the Safer Baby Bundle educational resources to support healthcare professionals with new strategies to help reduce stillbirths;
(e) looks forward to the Federal Government's release of the National Stillbirth Action Plan, due for public consultation in early 2020, which will outline strategies to reduce stillbirth rates and provide support for bereaved families;
(f) recognises that Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day is an opportunity to raise awareness of this difficult reality and start a conversation about miscarriage and infant loss;
(g) expresses sympathy to all families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or infant death;
(h) commends each and every person who has supported parents and families through their journey from the loss of a baby; and
(i) gives special recognition to previous generations who experienced such a devastating loss during a time when not only was the subject taboo, but families were given even less of an opportunity to commemorate and remember their children.
Question agreed to.
Newstart and Youth Allowance
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:55): I, and also on behalf of Senator Dodson, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that it is Anti-Poverty Week from 13 to 19 October 2019, and 17 October 2019 is the United Nations Day for the Eradication of Poverty;
(b) recognises the dedication and enthusiasm of the Newstart Nannas who are in Canberra today asking federal politicians to immediately raise the rate of Newstart;
(c) notes that over a quarter of Newstart recipients are over the age of 55;
(d) acknowledges that many older women are increasingly facing financial insecurity, retiring into poverty and experiencing homelessness; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to listen to the pleas of the Newstart Nannas for an immediate increase to Newstart and Youth Allowance.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:55): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government understands the importance of access to the essential services, including stable accommodation. That's why we provide states and territories with more than $1.5 billion a year through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement to support their delivery of key services, as well as invest more than $200 million for emergency relief services and $73 million for financial counselling to support people who are doing it tough.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:55): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation supports this motion. We note the Greens' duplicity, because Anti-Poverty Week comes from the corrupt and deceitful United Nations. Twenty-five years ago former Western Australian Liberal premier Richard Court detailed the UN's process of controlling our country. Two years later Senator Pauline Hanson joined him. Ten years ago I joined them. Two weeks ago the Prime Minister at last admitted that unaccountable international bureaucratic agencies push a globalist agenda. We now want his actions not just his talk. We do not need the United Nations to tell us about poverty in Australia. Our dairy farmers can tell us about poverty. Our struggling everyday Australians can tell us about poverty. It's poverty that came to us on the back of socialist United Nations policy. It's energy poverty due to expensive renewables. It's farm poverty and community poverty from stealing farmers' property rights and wasting water on pseudo-environmental flows instead of food. It's poverty from driving down wages through mass immigration. To end poverty, exit the socialist United Nations. Exit the UN.
Question agreed to.
Anti-Poverty Week
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:57): At the request of Senators Marielle Smith and Dodson, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that it is Anti-Poverty Week from 13 to 19 October 2019;
(b) recognises that:
(i) in Australia, 739,000 children are living below the poverty line,
(ii) the poverty rate is proportionately higher for children than adults, with one in six living below the poverty line, or 17.3% of all children, and
(iii) all children deserve a fair start in life, no matter what their parents' circumstances; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to combat childhood poverty by lifting the rate of Newstart, ceasing their attacks on Medicare and the universality of our healthcare system, and by reversing their cuts to penalty rates to ensure working Australian families have a quality standard of living and a liveable wage.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government is committed to providing the best outcomes for children through our comprehensive and targeted social security system and welfare system. The government did not cut penalty rates. We're investing in an additional $6 billion over five years to guarantee Australians access to Medicare.
Question agreed to.
Veterans: Homelessness
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:58): I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Anti-Poverty Week is from 13 to 19 October 2019, and 17 October 2019 is the United Nations Day for the Eradication of Poverty,
(ii) individuals who have served in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have a right to be able to access comprehensive support services to enable them to reintegrate into civilian society,
(iii) recent estimates suggest that Australian veterans experience homelessness at a rate almost triple that of the general population,
(iv) factors such as age, poor mental and physical health, substance use and abuse, lack of access to support services, length of military service and accessibility of the housing and job market increase the likelihood of recent veterans experiencing homelessness, and
(v) recent research suggests that, despite services being in place for veterans, the information provided by the ADF and the Department of Veterans' Affairs as to entitlements is insufficient, and that understanding and accessing these entitlements remains unnecessarily burdensome to veterans and their families; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ensure ADF personnel are comprehensively informed of their entitlements prior to discharge, provide increased information as to how to access services and invest in current services to ensure they are able to adequately support the veterans and military families who need them, and
(ii) work with veterans' advocacy groups to develop a national strategy for the elimination of veteran homelessness as part of a national homelessness strategy.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:58): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government is concerned about any instances of homelessness in the veteran community and is committed to developing a more robust evidence base on this issue. Significant investments have been made to address the causal factors of homelessness, including major improvements to transition support employment programs, free mental health care for anyone with one day's service and immediate financial support for vulnerable veterans with mental health claims. The government is working closely with Defence, veterans and their families, and other stakeholders on new mental health strategies and an action plan, which will include further strategies to support those who are homeless.
Question agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:59): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Thalidomide disaster was the most significant pharmaceutical regulatory failure in Australian history – thousands of affected babies died in vitro, and survivors have lived with significant impairments since birth,
(ii) there are an estimated 100 living survivors in Australia who are experiencing rapid deterioration of their health and quality of life,
(iii) the Community Affairs References Committee conducted an inquiry on support for Australia's thalidomide survivors, and the committee reported on 22 March 2019 and found the current supports available to thalidomide survivors are inadequate; the committee made 11 recommendations, including that the Government should issue a formal apology, as well as provide compensation to enable survivors to live with their disability—the findings received unanimous support from the committee,
(iv) the Federal Government has not yet responded to the report and has indicated to survivors that they will not do so until mid-2020 – the only action taken by the Government so far has been to offer a plaque situated at the National Arboretum, and survivors have expressed the inadequacy of this offering as it is both inaccessible and unlikely to be enjoyed by survivors as many of them will be too immobile or would have passed away by the time the garden will have flourished, and
(v) further, survivors have clearly articulated the need for urgency in enacting all recommendations of the report, especially those which call for the provision of compensation to all survivors; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) urgently respond to the committee report, and
(ii) enact all recommendations of the committee report without delay.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government recognises the plight of victims of thalidomide and understands that they have suffered from circumstances outside of their control. The experience of thalidomide has been a national tragedy. The government is working on finalising its response as a matter of priority. A response to the recommendations of the Senate inquiry is complex and requires cross-portfolio consideration. Therefore, we will not be dictated to on timing by those who have never been in a position to enact change nor those who failed to enact change when they were in a position to do so.
Question agreed to.
Turkey's Operations in Syria
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:00): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 183 standing in the name of Senator Wong relating to Turkey's operations in Syria be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
Senator Di Natale: Just a point of clarification, Mr President: my understanding was that the convention in this place adopted by both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that foreign policy motions are of a complex nature and shouldn't be debated in the chamber. So I'm seeking your advice on that.
The PRESIDENT: That's not a point of order. As you described it, it was a point of clarification. Any senator is capable of denying any matter being dealt with as a formal motion in general business. My role as the chair is to give every senator that option. I've given that option. I've heard no objection.
Senator CICCONE: On that note, on behalf of Senator Wong, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with great concern:
(i) Turkey's military operation targeting Kurds in northern Syria,
(ii) Turkey's actions which are causing further destabilisation in the region, worsening the humanitarian disaster in Syria, and risk undermining progress against Daesh, and
(iii) evidence that innocent civilians are being killed and injured by Turkey's military operations in Syria;
(b) recognises that the Kurdish forces in Syria have:
(i) been instrumental in fighting Daesh as an ally of the Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS, and
(ii) lost over 10,000 fighters in the fight against Daesh in Syria; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to urge Turkey to cease its unilateral military operations in Syria.
Question agreed to.
Tasmania: Mining
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (17:02): I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) thermal coal combustion is a key driver of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures,
(ii) the impact the current level of global warming of just 1 degrees is having on Tasmania includes worsening floods, East Coast drought, marine heatwaves, increased dry lightning storms causing bushfires, coastal erosion, biosecurity threats and ecosystem stress,
(iii) the scientific consensus is that the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, must end in order to limit global warming to 2 degrees and prevent further climate breakdown,
(iv) Western Australian-based Midland Energy has received around $50,000, and Queensland-based Junction Coal around $23,000, in grants from the Tasmanian Government for coal exploration in Tasmania, and
(v) it is in Tasmania's best interest to be a climate positive, clean energy island, and that any new coal mines would harm the agricultural and tourism sectors; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to implement a prohibition on any new thermal coal mines in Tasmania.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Any proposal for mining in Tasmania would be subject to rigorous assessment and must be in the state's best interests. As the Tasmanian government has pointed out, there has been no application made nor any mining lease granted. It's also worth noting that the Greens were at the cabinet table, including now Senator McKim, when the Hardrock coalmine in Tasmania's Fingal Valley was approved.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:03): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: Referring to paragraph (a)(i), today is day 36 since I challenged the Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, to a debate on climate science and on the corruption of climate science. He has failed to respond. It is day 36 since I challenged Senator Di Natale to provide the empirical scientific data showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. Again, he has failed to respond. There is no scientific justification for paragraphs (a)(i), (ii) and (iii). Indeed, empirical scientific data proves that the claims are false. All three are false, and we cannot support his motion. His three claims are false, false, false. The Greens replace ecology with ideology—socialism. One Nation is committed to restoring Australia's productive capacity. This includes providing all Australians with low-cost electricity to drive growth. Coal does that, and our country, including Tasmania, has many clean coal deposits. Tasmanians have the right to access affordable, reliable, environmentally responsible hydrocarbon fuels. (Time expired)
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (17:04): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: Labor will be opposing the motion. The approval of coalmines in Tasmania is a matter for the Tasmanian state government, not for the national parliament. Further, Labor does not support a blanket prohibition on new coalmines.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:04): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted.
Senator Di Natale: I would have thought that you'd give me the courtesy—
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: Just so Senator Roberts understands our reasons for not debating him: a wise man once said, 'Never debate a fool, because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.' We will not be debating Senator Roberts; indeed, what we will be doing is continuing to campaign for the preservation of our planet and—
Senator Ruston: On a point of order: I think it is unparliamentary for a senator to be calling another senator in this chamber a fool.
Senator McKim: On the point of order: Senator Di Natale did not do what Senator Ruston just alleged and asserted that he did. He simply regaled to the chamber a saying, which we are all well aware of, and certainly did not attribute that—being a fool—to Senator Roberts.
Senator Ruston: I seek clarification as to whom Senator Di Natale was referring to when he made the statement.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, as the subject, I will take a submission from you.
Senator Roberts: It is not worth debating, because, if I had any respect for Senator Di Natale, I would have been offended.
The PRESIDENT: I think Senator Di Natale was careful enough with his words to run along the boundary line. I will review the Hansard and come back if the Hansard recorded something different to what I recall. It did grab my attention. I remind senators again—that includes everyone; I am not just referring to Senator Di Natale here—that statements are here to explain positions taken. They are not to inflame debate, otherwise we cascade into difficulty.
Senator Waters interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: That is why I am making clear, Senator Waters, that I am not referring to the Greens or Senator Di Natale; I am referring to inflammatory statements. This will descend very quickly if that happens, and I remind every senator, including myself—although I haven't done it—that any senator can deny leave for someone to make a one-minute statement. The question is that motion No. 174 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:11]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Renewable Energy
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:14): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in July 2019, former Tasmanian senator and founder of the Australian Greens, Dr Bob Brown, stated 'The proposal to build 200 supersized wind turbines on Robbins Island cattle farm will be the death of a thousand cuts to the State's endangered shore birds',
(ii) the Australian Greens:
(A) have not opposed the Robbins Island Wind Farm, first proposed in 2013, even though the island is home to the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagles, listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act),
(B) opposed the Adani coal project on the grounds that the Black-Throated Finch, listed as endangered under the EPBC Act, would become extinct if approval was given by the Queensland Government to the Carmichael coal mine, and
(C) apply double standards in respect of species extinction, because they use an endangered species listing if it might stop a coal project proceeding, but not when an endangered species listing might stop a wind farm or solar farm project,
(iii) the matter of Mr Hamish Cumming and others versus the Victorian Minister for Planning, a matter concerning brolgas (water birds) and the Golden Plains Wind Farm, has been listed for hearing in the Supreme Court of Victoria in October 2019,
(iv) the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments spent more than $40 million on the Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project, which did not deliver one milliamp of power, before being closed, and
(v) a new industry comprising a small number of environmental consultants or brokers, who commonly receive 5% of the project cost as a fee, now operates to obtain planning approval for overseas wind farm operators; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth Government to work with State Government Planning Ministers and their departments to be vigilant in making sure projects are viable and proper arms-length processes are followed when approving wind, solar and other renewable energy projects.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 176 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
National Security
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:19): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 163 standing in my name for today relating to border control.
Leave granted.
Senator CICCONE: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) after six years under this Liberal-National Government's watch, from 1 July 2014 to 31 August 2019:
1. 95,943 people have come through Australia's airports and sought asylum, as is their right to do, and
2. in nearly the same period, bridging visas have blown out from 94,000 to almost 230,000 – an increase of over 140%,
(ii) of the protection visa applications decided by the Department of Home Affairs in that period, 62,732 – 84.2% – were rejected,
(iii) those waiting in Australia on a bridging visa as their claims for asylum are assessed are often being exploited and trafficked by labour hire companies and criminal syndicates,
(iv) stakeholders have expressed concern as racketeering around visas and asylum applications have been allowed to flourish,
(v) the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Wood, remarked on the blowout of airplane arrivals and stated 'Organised crime and illegitimate labour hire companies are using this loophole...', and
(vi) the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, stated that: '...If you cannot control your borders, you cannot govern the country'; and
(b) condemns the Morrison Government and the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, for losing control of Australia's borders and allowing exploitation, slavery and trafficking to go unchecked, having a devastating impact on workers and their families, and the ability to do basic mathematics and provide accurate data to the Senate on the number of people who have been trafficked to Australia under their watch.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:20): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government opposes this motion. In the last three years under this government, 4,780 protection visas have been granted to people who have arrived lawfully by air. This is 31 per cent less than the 6,900 visas granted under Labor in its last three years of office. The government continues to manage our migration program by maintaining secure borders and clearing the backlog of the 50,000 illegal maritime arrivals who arrived between 2007 and 2013 and applied for protection.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (17:21): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McKIM: The Labor Party has been running this line about people arriving by plane to seek asylum since the election, and it is deeply counterproductive and dangerous. Attempting to outflank Minister Peter Dutton from the right, the Labor Party are co-opting the language of Mr Dutton and Senator Hanson on border security and implying that we have something to fear from people seeking asylum. Surely the fact that One Nation have joined this campaign ought to give Labor pause for thought. The facts are that, if people have a claim for asylum, they ought to be allowed to make it in our country, because, despite the last 20 years of cruelty, we are still a signatory to the refugee convention and people should be allowed to claim asylum, no matter how they arrive in this country. Most dangerously, Labor is effectively egging on Mr Dutton to crack down harder on refugees. He's already wrecked and destroyed enough lives and he needs no further encouragement.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 163, as amended, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:26]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Home Care Packages
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (17:30): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 164, I wish to inform the chamber that Senators Griff, Polley and Siewert will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Bilyk, Griff, Polley and Siewert, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the latest Government report indicates that there are 120,000 older Australians waiting for their approved package, and
(ii) more than 72,000 older Australians on the wait list have no home care package at all;
(b) recognises that:
(i) the majority of older Australians waiting for level three and level four packages have high care needs,
(ii) some older Australians have been waiting more than two years for their approved package, many of whom are in their 90s, and others who have terminal illnesses, and
(iii) older Australians are entering residential aged care or even emergency departments instead of receiving their approved home care package;
(c) condemns the Morrison Government for failing to stop the waitlist growing; and
(d) calls on the Morrison Government to listen to the growing chorus of voices for urgent action to fix the home care packages waitlist now, and properly address this national crisis.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:30): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government is committed to supporting senior Australians to remain in their own homes for longer. End of financial year data for 2018-19 indicates that 125,117 Australians have access to Home Care Packages compared to 99,932 at the same time last year. That is a 25 per cent increase in just one year. In comparison, Labor at the election provided no additional funding in their costings for home care places nor any additional funding for aged-care quality or workforce or for residential aged care. In six years we have more than doubled the number of packages available, and by 2022-23 we will have achieved a 161 per cent increase since Labor left government in 2012-13.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 164 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:35]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
National Children's Week
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:37): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 166, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Bilyk will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators Marielle Smith and Bilyk, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that it is National Children's Week from 19 to 27 October 2019;
(b) recognises that:
(i) the first three years of life set critical foundations for learning, development and well-being into adulthood,
(ii) early childhood education and care in Australia is disproportionately funded by private sources, such as parents and families,
(iii) only one in five Australian children attend a public institution for early childhood education and care – well below the OECD average,
(iv) childcare costs are going up for working families, who are already struggling with stagnating wages, a slowing economy and skyrocketing costs of living, and
(v) all Australian children should have access to quality education at the start of life, regardless of where they live; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to make early childhood education an economic priority, and take steps to provide long-term funding certainty for four-year-old preschool, and extend the program to three-year-olds.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government understands the value of early childhood education and care and is investing record funding of $8.6 billion this year, benefitting around one million families. Our childcare reforms have delivered a 7.9 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs for families and include a $1.2 billion safety net supporting vulnerable and disadvantaged children. Our government funds the majority of the cost of early education and care in Australia. We've also invested $2.8 billion in preschools since 2014, providing funding every year, including $449½ million in 2020. This has resulted in around 91 per cent of children being enrolled in a preschool program in the year before school. We're continuing our focus on boosting participation for those that need it the most through our preschool attendance strategy program.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARUQI: The Greens are strong supporters of early childhood education and care. We believe that anyone who wants their child to participate in early education should be able to do so without any barriers, and early childhood educators should be paid a professional wage. We want to extend universal access to early childhood education to 24 hours a week for all three- and four-year-olds and fund the national partnership agreement on an ongoing basis. Let's also further support children and families by making child care free and by abolishing the activity test.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 166, in the names of Senators Smith and Bilyk, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:35]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Dairy Industry
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:43): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 172 standing in my name for today relating to the dairy industry.
Leave granted.
Senator HANSON: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in 2000, the dairy industry in Australia was deregulated, and since that time milk production has fallen from close to 12 billion litres a year to 8.8 billion litres a year, while the population has increased from 19 million to 25 million people,
(ii) milk production has fallen in every state in the past 12 months with the greatest decline in Queensland, followed by South Australia and New South Wales,
(iii) the number of dairy farms has declined in Queensland from around 1500 to about 380,
(iv) Queensland dairy herds are now in immediate danger through a failure of the winter and summer seasonal crops, and the shortage of quality feed means it is likely that whole herds will be sent to the slaughterhouse and families destroyed,
(v) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) dairy inquiry report was handed down in April 2018, and found that an increase in the fresh milk price in supermarkets would not benefit dairy farmers, only the processors,
(vi) none of the eight recommendations in the ACCC’s report have been implemented by the Federal Government, including the Mandatory Code of Practice which means that farmers are still being forced into unfair and unconscionable contracts going forward for the next five years,
(vii) there is an immediate need to deal with the imbalance in bargaining power between dairy farmers and processors by legislating to make unfair contracts and, in particular, multi-year contracts (which bind farmers but not processors) unlawful because dairy farmers do not have the means to pursue these unfair contracts through the courts, and
(viii) the power imbalance between farmers and processors directly impacts farmgate milk prices; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) provide immediate additional financial support to dairy farmers who cannot feed their herds,
(ii) implement all of the ACCC recommendations, and
(iii) task the ACCC to investigate how it can regulate the price of milk per litre paid by processors to dairy farmers to ensure a viable dairy industry.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government opposes this notice of motion in relation to the re-regulation of the industry because the industry does not support this. Government backed industry in 1999 when they sought deregulation and will continue to support Australian dairy farmers. The industry is doing it tough due to a combination currently impacted by the effects of drought and high-input costs for electricity. The government is implementing a mandatory code of conduct to increase fairness and transparency between dairy farmers and processes and to support the industry in addressing the ACCC dairy report recommendations. The code will help address the imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and processors. The code is being developed in consultation with the industry and will support farmers to address egregious contracting practices. An exposure draft of the code will be released in the coming months for industry feedback. It's expected that the code will be in place by mid-2020. The government is also providing $1.51 million to Dairy Australia and to Australian dairy farmers to improve farmers' business literacy for contract negotiations and to develop a standard form contract.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 172, as amended, in the name of Senator Hanson be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:50]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
DOCUMENTS
Asylum Seekers
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (17:53): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 173, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Keneally will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Keneally, move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, by 5 pm on 16 October 2019, the final report on the review, led by Professor Peter Shergold, into Australia's integration, employment and settlement outcomes for refugees and humanitarian entrants, which was delivered to the Government in February 2019.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:53): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government thanks Professor Shergold for his detailed review into integration, employment and settlement outcomes for refugees and humanitarian entrants. The review was informed by targeted consultation with refugees, service providers, peak body organisations, academics, think tanks, business and industry groups, regional development organisations, youth settlement groups, and public servants working for Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments. Ninety people attended round table meetings, including refugees and other stakeholders; 57 submissions were received; and 134 case studies were made available to the review team. The cabinet will thoroughly examine the report and respond following due consideration.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 173 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:55]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MOTIONS
Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (17:57): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 175, I ask that the names of Senators Bilyk and Sheldon be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators McKim, Bilyk and Sheldon, move:
That—
(1) The Senate notes:
(a) the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System (the Committee) was appointed by resolution of the Senate on 18 September 2019, and resolution of the House of Representatives on 19 September 2019;
(b) final membership of the Committee has yet to be confirmed, however, Mr Kevin Andrews, MP is to be appointed as the Chair and Senator Hanson as the Deputy Chair;
(c) the Federal Government has yet to act on or respond to the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission review of the family law system;
(d) up to 85% of matters in the Family Court involve family violence and abuse;
(e) since the announcement of the inquiry into Australia's family law system, numerous women's and children's safety organisations, including the Government reference group and Australian Women Against Violence Alliance, have condemned the inquiry and the proposed appointment of Mr Andrews and Senator Hanson; and
(f) more than 1400 emails have been sent to the Prime Minister and other parliamentarians expressing concern that victims and survivors of family violence and abuse will not feel safe to give evidence to the inquiry, compromising the legitimacy of any recommendations made by the Committee.
(2) The Senate calls on the Federal Government to:
(a) immediately abandon the unnecessary and harmful inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System;
(b) respond to the recommendations of:
(i) the Australian Law Reform Commission's review of family law, and
(ii) the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry, Better Family Law System to Support and Protect those Affected by Family Violence; and
(c) implement evidence-based strategies to make family law safer for victims and survivors of family violence.
(3) This resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government is committed to ongoing improvements to the family law system because this is a serious issue. Many Australians go through the system during an extremely traumatic time in their lives, and that's why the government intends to legislate to fix the broken split family law court system. The inquiry will provide an important opportunity for parliamentarians to hear from Australians. The inquiry will build on the action the government has already taken, including measures taken following the 2017 Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee inquiry chaired by now-Senator Henderson. It includes passing legislation to ban the cross-examination, in the family law system, of family violence victims by alleged perpetrators. The government also continues to consider the review by the ALRC and intends to provide a response to the recommendations of that report has soon as possible. Since 2013, the government has invested over $840 million to address family and domestic violence.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 175 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:00]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Australian Capital Territory: Renewable Energy
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (18:03): I move:
That the Senate congratulates the Australian Capital Territory Government for reducing emissions by 40% since 1990, and this month securing 100% of the Territory's power from renewable energy, meaning Australian Parliament House and the offices of Senator Canavan and the Member for Hughes, Mr Craig Kelly, and the Prime Minister's Office, among others, are all running completely on clean energy.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (18:03): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Senator Di Natale's either being misled or being misleading: 93.6 per cent of the ACT's energy generation comes from New South Wales, and the New South Wales grid includes over 70 per cent of coal and gas generation to keep the lights on. New South Wales is carrying the costs of the ACT's virtue. Not all jurisdictions have the luxury of being able to run an extension cord to another state's coal generation.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 179 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:04]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Syria
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (18:06): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 180 standing in my name today, relating to the Turkish invasion in north-east Syria, be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is an objection. Formality has been denied.
Senator DI NATALE: I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: There's the utter hypocrisy of the coalition. You always stand up in here and say that foreign policy motions are too complex to be debated in this chamber during motions and yet you supported the Labor Party putting forward a foreign policy. Why don't you guys just sit on the same side for a change? Why don't you just sit on the same side? You're a disgrace. You're an absolute disgrace.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Di Natale, through the chair.
Senator DI NATALE: You are a disgrace. There was the execution just a few days ago of Kurdish leader, Hevrin Khalaf—unarmed, pulled out of her vehicle and shot to death. She'd been working to unite the Arabs, the Christians and the Kurds in north-east Syria. This is just one example of a number of atrocities that are going on right now in Syria at the hands of the Turkish military, and you've got your head so far up the backside of Donald Trump that you refuse to take a stand on it. You are a disgrace. There are people, Australians, locked up right now in camps, and you refuse to do something about kids who are facing extermination at the hands of a brutal regime. We've abandoned them, left them alone, and here you are playing politics, because you refuse to take a stand. It is an absolute disgrace. It's about time you acknowledged that there are Australians citizens who are locked up right now, and we have had months and months and months to do something about it, to do something about the kids who are starving right now and are confronting disease, and what you are doing is playing politics in this chamber. It's about time you got your head out of the—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Di Natale, please resume your seat. Senator Di Natale, I grant leaders of parties some discretion. I called you to order to make your comments through and to the chair and not directed at other senators in that fashion. That is inappropriate.
Senator Di Natale interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, you can debate those matters. They're not for me to answer on behalf of 75 other senators.
BILLS
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019
Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 informing the Senate that the House has agreed to amendment (2) and disagreed to amendment (1) made by the Senate.
Senator CORMANN ( Western Australia — Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate ) ( 18:09 ): I move:
That the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:13]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
In Committee
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:17): I move:
That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (18:17): I'll just make a few quick comments. The only reason that we are here dealing with this now is that last night the government lost control of the Senate and lost a vote in this place—a vote on some pretty important amendments that saw important protections inserted into the police powers at airports legislation and that inserted a sunset clause after four years. The amendment also ensured that the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security reviewed these laws. We all accept it wasn't a good day for the Morrison government, which is why we're back here dealing with this now. Labor remains in support of the amendments that were proposed by Centre Alliance, and we will be consistent with our voting position. We do think it's unfortunate that the government cannot support these sensible amendments and that, while Senator Patrick supports the government more often than not, the government cannot provide him with the same support in return.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:18): I rise to again encourage the chamber to consider their vote on this particular matter. We are introducing a power to police that will possibly affect a number of people. It's a power that is granted to the police to allow them to demand identification, to remove people from an airport, to stop people getting onto flights. That is something that will affect a majority of Australians. Most Australians travel. We heard yesterday from the government that something like 44 million people visit our airports every year. Whilst Centre Alliance doesn't object to these powers—in terms of advice from the AFP and our security services saying that it's necessary—it potentially creates an infringement on citizens' rights; therefore, we should treat it very carefully and respectfully.
Yesterday, Centre Alliance sought to move an amendment whereby, after three years of the operation of these laws, the PJCIS would look at their operation and perhaps at other areas of airport security that may be important. At that point in time they might find that this law is, in fact, not very useful at all or that it is one of the more useful laws that has been passed in respect of aviation security. At that point in time, the parliament could then reconsider it. If, indeed, at that point in time, the parliament was of the view that these were really important, they could simply take a proposition to the House of Representatives and back into the Senate and seek to continue the operation of the laws.
If, indeed, the laws are found to be not very useful, they could simply lapse. In situations where we're given a choice about whether or not we allow a law to continue that is in some sense infringing on people's rights, we should take the default position of allowing those laws to lapse unless there is good reason for them to continue. It's for that reason that I ask the chamber to vote in support of the sunset. That's the proper thing that should be done with the new law that potentially infringes upon citizens' fundamental rights.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (18:21): Here we go again. The government is going to now vote against an important safeguard that the Senate yesterday agreed should be inserted into this legislation. This bill, taken as a whole, continues to erode fundamental rights and freedoms in our country. This is a very dangerous path, and most Australians, quite frankly, have very little idea about the rate at which their fundamental rights and freedoms are being eroded by this government. We used to send Australians, including members of my family, overseas to fight and, in some tragic cases, to die to protect and enhance these rights and freedoms, and now the government is removing these rights hand over fist.
Let's be really clear: the police already have perfectly adequate powers to maximise security at our airports. If an AFP officer has a reasonable suspicion that someone is engaging in behaviour that is a security risk or potentially a terrorist activity, they already have abundant powers to intervene and arrest. That is the fact of the matter.
This legislation gives the AFP extraordinary new powers to demand, under very lightly mandated circumstances, that Australians show them identification at an airport and to remove people if they either cannot or will not do that. This is 'papers, please' legislation—or, in the words of another language used at a very frightening time in human history, 'Papiere, bitte!' That's what we're dealing with here. It's 'papiere, bitte' legislation. We won't be supporting it. We will be voting in a moment to keep the safeguard in, which the Senate agreed yesterday ought to be put in.
This government often goes to the people and talks about the need to remove freedoms. They inevitably couch their arguments in the context of counterterrorism. I want to raise one example. A few years ago, when the metadata retention legislation came in—opposed, I might add, by the Australian Greens and supported by both major parties in this place—that pup was sold to this parliament and to the Australian people as being necessary to engage in counterterrorism activities. But let's have a look at who has actually used the metadata that has been retained by internet service providers, as they are required to under the legislation. It's now being used by local councils to bust people for having unregistered dogs. That's what metadata is now being used for.
Every single person in this chamber is having their metadata retained for two years now under a mandatory data retention framework that is being used not exclusively for counter-terrorism purposes, as we were promised by the government and the Attorney-General, former Senator Brandis, at the time; it is now being used by local governments to bust people for having unregistered pets. That's the bracket creep you inevitably see on most pieces of legislation that remove fundamental rights and freedoms. We are the only liberal democracy in the world that doesn't have some form of charter or bill of rights. It is time we had a charter of rights in this country—something to slow this government down in the relentless power grab it is engaged in here, taking away rights that my family members died to protect and enhance in world wars in the past. We won't be supporting this government's attempt to remove this really important framework and safeguard from this legislation.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (18:26): Firstly, a statement of the bleeding obvious: we are here revisiting this because I missed a division yesterday. I know the temptation to play politics and characterise that as mismanagement by the government is the apple you must grasp on that side of the chamber, but it was not the government's fault. I undertook to support the government entirely with its legislative agenda on this particular bill. I was called away at short notice and neglected to inform the whip that I was unavailable. The mea culpa goes entirely to me. I am pleased that it has given Senator McKim and others an opportunity to redebate and talk about things, but I apologise to the Senate for the delaying of this legislation on the government's behalf.
The CHAIR: The question is that the motion as moved by the minister be agreed to.
The committee divided. [18:31]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (18:33): This means that the committee does not insist upon its amendments and the bill has proceeded without them. This is in line with precedents listed on page 342 of the current edition of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice.
MATTERS OF URGENCY
Dairy Industry
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (18:35): 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 Hanson:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
"That Australia's dairy farmers are facing ruin and the government must take action to ensure they are paid a fair farm gate price for their milk."
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (18:35): I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
"That Australia's dairy farmers are facing ruin and the government must take action to ensure they are paid a fair farm gate price for their milk."
The dairy industry in Australia is on its knees. Less than half an hour ago there was a vote in this chamber to address the dairy industry. My notice of motion was to call on the federal government to provide immediate additional financial support to the dairy farmers who cannot feed their herds, implement all of the ACCC's recommendations and task the ACCC to investigate how it can regulate the price of milk per litre paid by processors to dairy farmers to ensure a viable dairy industry.
The support I got was from the Labor Party and the Greens. It was the Liberal Party, the Nationals, Senator Patrick, Senator Sterling and Senator Bernardi who voted against that motion. It needed one more vote. It was 30-all, so it was negatived. I call on Senators Patrick, Stirling and Bernardi to consider the fact that—all three of them are from South Australia—their dairy industry cannot supply the needs of their own state, so they have to import milk from Victoria. The same applies for their electricity. They can't even supply their state with electricity. They have to import it from another state. It's an absolute disgrace that they care not. They voted against this, which was for the dairy farmers of this nation.
It is a desperate situation, and I want to make sure people realise just how serious things have become. Farming in this country has become progressively more difficult with the extended drought, on top of rising water and electricity prices and general increases in expenses like fuel, farm supplies, machinery, maintenance, fodder and other farm running costs. Dairy farmers have even more hurdles to achieving viability: farmers also suffer from harsh contracts with milk processors and retailers that squeeze prices so low that it robs them of any profit. The processors and retailers are just being cold hearted and cruel, putting their profits way ahead of the needs of a traditional Australian industry and the lives and livelihoods of hardworking Australians.
As I have mentioned many times, we cannot allow our farmers to be crushed by the compounding weight of all these factors. We can't let them crumble to such desperate lows that they simply walk off the land or, worse still, suffer family breakdowns or resort to other drastic actions like suicide, which has occurred in an unacceptable number of cases. The fact that there has been little meaningful support from government only makes the battle even more hopeless and lonely for many struggling dairy farmers. This is why I am pushing so hard for the introduction of the long-awaited code of conduct for the dairy industry that will, among other things, set a base farmgate price per litre of milk so that dairy farmers can at least have some surety that they will earn enough money to cover their production costs and allow them to make a profit. We need them to stay profitable so they can keep producing milk and provide for their families—and preserve their chosen way of life, which has been that way for generations.
The code of conduct has been in the pipeline for at least five years. It was suggested in 2014 by the Australian Dairy Industry Council and Dairy Australia. Along with the fair farmgate price, the farmers want initiatives that help provide some balance in the industry between farmers, processors and retailers.
In September 2018, in response to my motion, the government assured us it was working towards introducing the code. In the motion, I asked them that measures be put in place to provide immediate additional financial support to dairy farmers who cannot feed their herds and also to regulate the price of milk per litre paid by processors to dairy farmers to ensure a viable dairy industry. In reply, the government said:
The government strongly supports Australia's dairy farmers and the dairy industry, and acknowledges that many are doing it tough at present.
It also said at the time:
The government will work to address the significant imbalance in bargaining power and marketing information for dairy farmers through the code and particularly through its dispute resolution mechanism and other means where suitable.
Well, that was 13 months ago. Since then, nothing has happened. We have a dairy farmer leaving the land every week. And what has the government's response been? Nothing. The government has been sitting on its hands while the farmers continue to struggle. Farmers continue to walk off the land, our farmers face ruin and our dairy industry is on the verge of becoming unviable. If we don't support farmers and their families, we will eventually become dependent on imported milk. That would leave us susceptible to unknown milk quality and unpredictable pricing, and put us at risk of losing this iconic farming sector that has been such an important part of our wonderful country.
From September 2018, let's fast forward to this week. The Minister for Agriculture, Bridget McKenzie, has been exposed for having done nothing on this matter. I asked the senator:
Why has the government waited until there has been a mass exodus of dairy farmers before realising a code of practice was required?
Minister McKenzie replied:
That's actually not true. Our government has been taking steps to stand by dairy farmers and the industry more broadly over many, many years. Getting this code in place is an important commitment we have made. There is no hold-up whatsoever, on our side, to get this in place to give the farmers the security they need.
Well, the stats show something different. The total number of dairy farms in Australia has dropped from 6,853 in 2010-11 to 5,699 as of 30 June 2018. I wonder how many more farmers were lost in the last 12 months. Milk production has also dropped. At its peak, in 2000, we produced 12 billion litres annually. But that fell to 9½ billion litres last year and dropped further to 8.7 billion litres this year. And then there's population. At the industry's height, there were 19 million people in this country. Now, there are 25 million people, yet we have dropped the production of milk.
I am also concerned that delays in the introduction of the code of conduct may come as a result of the conflict of interest from Minister McKenzie. Minister McKenzie's home state of Victoria is the only state in which the industry has consistently opposed the introduction of the code. Victoria has more dairy farms than all the other states combined. It is home to more than 64 per cent of the dairy cows in Australia. While the number of cows has dropped considerably in all other states since 2010, the number of cows in Victoria has stayed steady at over one million. Victoria is the only state in which farmers don't have contracts with processors, due to strong competition between processors. Victoria also exports considerable quantities of milk to other states. These factors all combine to raise concerns that the process for introducing the code is being compromised.
As we know, Senator McKenzie is up for re-election at the next federal election due in 2022. It is of great concern to me that dairy farmers, who are desperately waiting for some farmgate price support for their milk, might be waiting in vain for the code of conduct due to some political reason. I hope it's not true. But, with years of delay and government slackness in introducing this important document, I am now starting to wonder.
Labor is no help either, which is no real surprise. They have been using weasel words on this matter and have not made any positive contribution. As I said, if you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. But watching the vote in the chamber today gives me hope that Labor are starting to wake up. Last September, Queensland Labor senator Anthony Chisholm, who is also up for re-election, added his two cents worth in relation to my notice of motion. He said:
Whilst there are many points Labor could provide strong support for, sadly there are other points that have an eye more to an election, rather than to assisting farmers.
Well, I haven't given up my fight, Senator Chisholm. He further said:
Labor has been working closely with the dairy industry.
This is total BS from both the government, which has done nothing substantial in over a year, and from Labor. They're playing a political game at the expense of farmers' lives and livelihoods, just because it's One Nation.
If we don't do something, we're going to end up importing milk, and who wants to drink milk from China? Their own people don't even want to feed their babies their own baby milk formula. I want to say thank you very much to the Greens for their support. (Time expired)
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (18:46): This government supports our Australian dairy farmers and fundamentally believes that they must be paid a fair farmgate price for their milk. Dairy is Australia's third-largest rural industry, with almost 5,700 dairy farms, most of them family owned and operated, producing $4.3 billion last year at the farm gate. It is true that dairy farmers are facing challenging times, with higher costs of input during this drought, particularly around grain and electricity prices, and those costs are higher again for Queensland dairy farmers. Right now, the opening farmgate prices for milk are rising, and they are helping to improve confidence in the industry. Some processors have announced step-ups for the current milk season. Let's be clear: in 1999, the dairy industry came to government asking for deregulation, and the government complied. Government does not support the re-regulation of the dairy industry, because industry does not want re-regulation. I draw your attention to today's media releases from the Australian dairy organisation and the National Farmers' Federation.
As a government, we're working hard to ensure a strong and robust dairy industry now and into the future. During the election, the Liberal-National government announced a range of commitments to assist dairy farmers, including $10 million to help farmers reduce their energy costs through improved infrastructure and equipment; $1.5 million to Dairy Australia and Australian Dairy Farmers to support increased price transparency through advanced contracting and milk marketing tools; and the development of a mandatory code of conduct, just like we delivered the Sugar Code of Conduct for our Australian sugar cane farmers.
Let's not forget that this government is focused on achieving new markets for our farmers. Our track record on free trade helped our world-renowned dairy farmers to export 36 per cent of their production last year, and we are working to get our farmers new and improved access. These export markets are crucial. Not only do they provide another market opportunity but they boost competition for our farmers' products, which, in the context of the Woolworths-Coles-dominated supermarket structure, is important in driving better pricing for our farmers. This is what we're doing for all of our agricultural industries. Whether you produce fruit, vegies, meat or milk, as a government, we're working for you.
But can we do more? I think we need to look at the impact of the market power of retailers in order to prevent unfair bargaining practices in the agrifood supply chain. Across the board, unequal bargaining power, right through from the retailer to the processor and the farmers, is indirectly affecting farmgate prices. We are bringing forward Federal Court divestiture powers as a penalty for companies and corporations engaging in misconduct in the energy market, and I think it is time we give the ACCC the right powers to deal with repetitive and unfair bargaining practices by retailers. Addressing these issues holistically makes more sense for the longevity of the entire agricultural sector. This will help our farmers as they continue to push through the challenges—disease, market disruption, product perishability, drought, fire and flood. On that note, we will continue to stand with our drought affected farmers and regional communities.
The government has announced over $7 billion in measures to help drought affected farmers across Australia, including dairy farmers, facing hardship. Our government's drought plan is designed to provide immediate action, support for the wider communities affected and longer term resilience and planning. The farm household allowance gives income support to farming families, helping them meet costs for basic household necessities while they're in hardship. We've also topped up the Drought Community Support Initiative, which provides a grant of up to $3,000 per family to help with bills.
In closing, I think our dairy farmers are among the best in the world. I'm proud to be part of a government taking holistic action when it comes to our agricultural industries. We will continue to stand with our farmers and fight for their right to fair prices. I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues to address any challenge that keeps our farmers from doing what they do best, which is producing the world's best food and fibre to the world's highest standards.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (18:51): I just want to clear the Hansard record first, after Senator Hanson's contribution, as she kept saying 'Senator Sterling'. I know you meant Senator Stirling Griff. Me being Sterle, I don't want to get bombarded by all the cranky South Australians listening to your contribution, looking for who to pull the nose of and finding the closest thing to 'Sterling' is 'Sterle'. It's Senator Griff. No worries. Hey, everyone in South Australia, it ain't me. I'm supporting Senator Hanson's matter of urgency.
Look, we do know. Our dairy industry faces existential threat. I know darn well, because I worked closely in the RRAT committee with the dairy farmers years and years ago during the Howard regime, and nothing has changed. For six years the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has ignored the plight of our dairy farmers who are caught in a cost-price squeeze exasperated by drought. Labor does believe that government intervention is needed to save our dairy sector and our dairy farmers. It is why on 20 February of this year Labor sought to task the ACCC to test the efficacy of a minimum farmgate milk price and to make recommendations on the best design options. It is not acceptable for our farmers to be paid less than the cost of producing their milk, like our truck drivers. If Australia wants a thriving dairy industry, leaders must act. Business as usual needs to end, and directing the ACCC to assess, test and design a floor price is an important first step in giving our dairy farmers a fair go.
The Liberals and Nationals talk up a big game in Canberra, but they have done nothing to help our dairy farmers and they refuse to intervene in the market. If you don't believe me, you only had to sit in question time, like yesterday, and listen to the feeble attempt by the minister to try and answer some of the Senator Hanson's fair questions. It was pathetic.
The coalition government has had more than five years to implement a code of conduct and has miserably failed. The Morrison government has kicked the mandatory code down the road to 1 July 2020. Australia's $4 billion dairy industry supports more than 5,500 farming families, which we've heard, and creates around 42½ thousand jobs. It is also a key exporter of quality Australian dairy product. This is not a new issue that we are discussing in this Senate.
On 14 September 2016, the Senate undertook an inquiry into the Australian diary industry in order to establish a fair, long-term solution to Australia's dairy crisis, with particular reference to fresh milk security. This inquiry was part of a general notice of motion where the Senate noted the Australian dairy industry is facing an unprecedented crisis, with the retail cost of bottled milk per litre often less than the retail cost of bottled water—go figure that one out. Australian milk production, since deregulation over 15 years ago, has decreased from 11 billion litres per year to nine billion litres per year now—a 20 per cent decrease. Meanwhile, New Zealand milk production has almost doubled.
In 2011, a report of the Senate Economics References Committee recommended that producer contracts with dairy farmers should offer a clear and consistent formula for milk pricing, with unambiguous conditions. I was on that inquiry. I chaired the Perth end of it. I know. Five years later, the livelihoods of up to 40 per cent of Australian dairy farmers are under threat because of imposed retrospective debt helped by unclear, inconsistent milk pricing contracts with ambiguous conditions. Australia's largest dairy producer and milk price setter, Murray Goulburn, has been allowed to force onto its suppliers unprecedented milk contracts or agreements, ensuring that dairy farmers are burdened with retrospective debts ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Australian rural and regional communities face losing millions of dollars and thousands of jobs if a fair, long-term solution to Australia's dairy crisis is not found.
I shouldn't be delivering this speech. It should be that mob over there. I can't believe this. No, I can. The mental and physical health of dairy families and workers is being unnecessarily and unfairly placed in jeopardy as these politicians and legal and industry experts argue about possible solutions to the dairy crisis. The Senate must not forget the lack of action by the Turnbull-Morrison government following the Murray Goulburn dairy crisis. Farmers need political leaders and farming representative groups to stand up for our dairy industry.
Sadly, the National Farmers Federation, whom I have absolutely no respect for—let me put it clearly on the record that it's me, not the Labor Party, saying that—put out a statement on the same day Labor made its announcement, stating:
The National Farmers' Federation says 'sure' ask the ACCC to look at a floor price for milk, but it remains highly cautious about simple solutions to the dairy industry's complex problems.
"Our dairy sector is under significant pressure, there's no doubt about that," NFF President Ms Simson said.
"We are always willing to listen to new strategies that might ease this pressure and to ensure a fair price for farmers; this includes hearing the ACCC thoughts on the merits of a minimum farm gate milk price."
However, Ms Simson said Labor's floor price idea appeared to be a nod to the past rather than a serious strategy for the future.
"We need a dairy sector that is strong, sustainable and competitive at home and on the world stage.
"As an export dependent industry, that exports two thirds of what we produce, prices for Australian agricultural products are largely determined by international market forces.
"We'd be really interested to see if and how a regulated floor price might enhance the dairy sector's global competitiveness."
"It's imperative that any such measures are considered in full consultation with, and with support from, the industry—most importantly farmers."
Ms Simson recognised that a move by Woolworths this week to scrap $1 milk was not the sole answer but said it was definitely a step in the right direction.
"A guaranteed return of an additional 10 cents per litre to farmers whose milk is sold to Woolworths is a real and tangible benefit to the hip pocket.
"We're calling all other major supermarkets to follow suit, with the same or ideally, larger increase."
Ms Simson said the NFF was keen to see the implementation of the Dairy Mandatory Code of Conduct, which was agreed to last year by industry and Government.
The Code includes making milk supply contracts subject to unfair contract legislation.
"The majority of dairy farmers are largely family operations who can be at a distinct disadvantage when negotiating with the might and force of large processors.
It appears that the National Farmers Federation does not understand the true pressure of dairy farmers and what they are currently facing. However, the NFF does agree that the Morrison government should implement the dairy code of conduct, but how long does it take to implement a code of conduct? For the sugar industry, it was less than 24 hours, when Senator Hanson threatened to withhold her vote on the government tax cuts, and so it should have been. I also worked hard with the sugarcane growers too—make no mistake about that. But for Australia's dairy farmers it appears to be on the never-never.
It also appears that Australian Dairy Farmers, ADF, continue to oppose dairy farmers receiving a fair farm gate price, putting out a media release today reaffirming their opposition. However, they then stated:
Clearly this is an extremely complex policy decision, particularly given our export exposure. However, it is important to note that the dairy industry is at a critical point and these issues must be addressed.
Wow! But ADF offer no hope or solutions to farmers who face the real challenge of being paid less than what it costs to produce their milk. ADF also continue to see no problem with the Morrison government's go-slow approach the implementation of a dairy code of conduct. This simply is not good enough for our dairy farmers.
Post Labor's announcement, the former agriculture minister, David Littleproud, announced that the Morrison government would review the milk price index. This has done nothing to assist dairy farmers and was just another tactic to do nothing. It appears that the Morrison government is hoping that our dairy farmers leave the land. How can they sit on their hands while our dairy farmers continue to suffer? How can the Morrison government not understand that dairy farmers need to be paid a fair price for their milk? Or should our dairy farmers take the advice given by former agriculture minister Mr Barnaby Joyce? He said on Sky News in response to criticism of the Morrison government's lack of action on drought:
We've got to support you in the drought, but if your place is just not viable, $36,000 just isn't going to make a difference and people have to answer their own question in their own mind if this is the job in their life for them.
Seriously, I'm not making that up! And then Mr Joyce said:
We don't want to keep people in potential poverty.
People who have not made a profit in the last 10 years really need to seriously think, what are you doing with your life? What are you doing on the land?
Does this callous comment also apply to Australia's dairy farmers, who are not receiving a fair farmgate price and who are not making a profit? The fact is Australians want to ensure that they have a prosperous and thriving dairy industry. Under this government—oh, my goodness me!—I absolutely feel sorry for them. (Time expired)
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (19:01): The Greens have a proud history in this chamber of fighting for a better deal for farmers, including dairy farmers, who are up against the market power of big food and big grocery companies. Indeed, Senator Christine Milne, the previous Leader of the Greens, was herself the daughter of a dairy farmer.
When I started in 2012, we went to the 2013 election with a full suite of policies to tackle the supermarket duopoly and provide an effective set of competition policy laws, as well as backing in increased powers for the ACCC and putting in place laws and better legislation, standing up for small business and supporting farmers. I'm proud to announce that in 2013 we called for mandatory codes of conduct between the supermarkets and the dairy farmers. In 2016, we called for unfair retrospective price changes to be removed from these contracts. I'm exceptionally proud to say that in 2017, having campaigned on it for four years, we worked with the National Party and the Liberal Party to bring in what was one of the most revolutionary changes to competition policy in this country in a decade, which was an effects test.
For those who don't remember, it was one of those extraordinary moments in time where, although we had put up motions to bring in an effects test and it had never been supported—but the Nationals had crossed the floor and voted with us—the day we got the law up was the day that Mr Malcolm Turnbull had just assumed the leadership, and they had done a deal to get the Nationals' support. That deal was that the Liberals that day would vote for an effects test. So we have a great set of competition policies because of an unusual time in history. But it came from the persistence of the Greens and the Nationals in this place to work to get that in place. Senator Xenophon would, I'm sure, be very disappointed in your stance today too for voting down One Nation's motion, but I'm sure you will explain that.
The question of how milk prices are regulated is obviously an important issue for this parliament, as it is for many industries. It's clear that the current free market approach is working more for big producers and supermarkets than it is for farmers. As Senator Sterle acknowledges, this has been the case for many years. I remember us having exactly this same debate back in 2012, 2013 and 2014, yet nothing has changed. We let One Nation know today that the Greens won't commence the need to directly regulate the price of milk paid by processors, and I thank One Nation for amending their motion today to perhaps leave it more open-ended for more discussion on that point. But we do believe very strongly that we need to regulate how milk prices are negotiated to protect farmers.
The important point to consider with milk, as with other perishable products, is that farmers can't hold out to get a better price, unlike a wheat farmer, for example. For those of us who have been on RRAT for a number of inquiries that, for example, looked at wheat boards and wheat markets, wheat farmers can hold out by putting their crop in their silos for a month or so to wait for better prices. Dairy farmers need to move their product on the day that it's produced. Of course, this puts dairy farmers at the mercy of producers and the contracts they have signed.
Two points, one about my home state of Tasmania: our party has often argued that for a small state like Tasmania the future for dairy producers is to value-add, to leverage off the brand. Brand Tasmania is one of the best things my state has going for it, So produce high-value products, leverage off the brand and of course diversify your product. From King Island all the way to Bruny Island, we've got some of the best dairies in the country, producing products that are sold on supermarket shelves right around the country while leveraging off that brand. Going value-added is always a good way to diversify your risk and get good money and not rely on the commodity markets and not get screwed over by supermarkets and milk processors.
Lastly, I'd like to mention an issue in Tasmania, especially in the dairy industry, that is very acute and very sensitive, and that is the sale of Tasmanian businesses to Chinese interests. I have raised in this parliament that Van Diemen's Land was bought by a Chinese investor who'd made an undertaking to spend $100 million in upgrading the business and employing locals. That undertaking has never been met. This government refuses to hold that investor to account, and it's totally unacceptable. It's totally unacceptable that our Foreign Investment Review Board laws aren't worth the paper they're written on if the government's not prepared to act and stand up for dairy farmers in Tasmania. I also made the point that the sale of Bellamy's, which is currently being considered by FIRB, looks like open direct market manipulation by Chinese state-owned enterprises. Stay tuned on that one! (Time expired)
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (19:06): I rise to support the urgency motion moved by Senator Hanson regarding dairy farmers. It's been quite some months now that I've been in the Senate, and finally Senator Hanson has developed a resolution that I feel capable of supporting—I suppose a stopped clock is right at least twice a day! Everybody knows that the dairy farming industry needs government action. Even One Nation realises that. Our dairy farmers are caught in a long-running cost-price squeeze that is being compounded by drought and Morrison government inaction. Labor believes that government intervention is needed in order to secure our dairy sector and our dairy farmers. Absent government action, our kids will no doubt be drinking imported milk, and I don't think that is a future Australia should be setting up for itself.
Of course, the history of government action in the dairy industry goes back some decades now—right back to when the Howard government deregulated the dairy industry in 2000. As curious as I was to search back through the history of dairy market deregulation, there was one notable proponent for dairy market deregulation in 1999 and 2000, and that was former Labor MP Mark Latham—the current leader of the One Nation party in New South Wales. In an article titled 'Pull the udder one'—a dad joke that even I hesitate to make!—the article said:
Labor MP Mark Latham, about as gung-ho for competition policy as you get on either side of the parliament, said in an ABC interview in February: "I'm on the side of the dairy farmers. Ninety per cent of Victorian dairy farmers voted for deregulation. This was Australia's first ever democratic deregulation. So how can anyone like Hanson or other people campaigning on these issues say that they want to reregulate the industry when it's the industry itself, the great bulk of Australia's dairy farmers are in Victoria and they decided that they wanted to go down in path?"
That's what Mark Latham, the leader of One Nation, said then. After the dark despair of the election loss in 2004—the self-loathing, the despair, the sewer that he climbed into over the course of the ensuing years to finally emerge as a leader of the One Nation Party in New South Wales—that's his political record in terms of the dairy industry. I'm actually very surprised to find One Nation here in the Senate with a skerrick of sympathy and interest in the future of dairy farmers, if that's the kind of character they are prepared to recruit for political leadership in New South Wales.
In February Labor promised that if we were successful at the election we would task the ACCC with testing the merits of a minimum farmgate price and to make recommendations on the best design options. That's the responsible course of action. There is only one potential party of government in this place that would act to save the dairy industry. It's not acceptable for our farmers to be paid less than the cost of production for their milk. If a floor price is needed to win this crisis, that's what Labor, in government, would support. Australia needs a thriving dairy industry, not a dying dairy industry. Scott Morrison should act.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): I would encourage you to use the Prime Minister's appropriate title.
Senator AYRES: Thank you. It is a lack of experience that leads me to make these mistakes, of course.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Consider yourself experienced, Senator.
Senator AYRES: Yes. I'm learning every day—learning on the job, which is about the only option that the Liberal's vocational education policy allows people these days.
Directing the ACCC to test and design a floor price would be an important first step in giving dairy farmers a fair go. The Liberals and Nationals talk a big game in Canberra, but they have done nothing to help dairy farmers and refuse, for ideological reasons, to intervene in the market.
Where, in fact, is the National Party on the dairy industry? They have always been on the side of big agriculture, not family farmers and not farming families. Examine the history of dairy deregulation and government action and inaction in this area and the application, the relentless application, of Liberal Party big-end-of-town, neoliberal principles to the dairy market and you will always find the National Party there, the enablers of Liberal Party policy in the dairy industry—Liberal Party policy that is hurting family farms; Liberal Party policy that is making it harder for dairy farmers to operate. They are always there for big corporate power and big retailers and they have got the mealy-mouthed words and the quisling approaches to try to justify their proposition, but they weren't anywhere to be found when the crisis was on in the dairy industry. It's always the National Party. They are enabling pushing prices down.
It was Mark Latham in 1999 and 2000 who was into pushing competition policy and neoliberal policy in the dairy industry, but it's the National Party all of the time on that agenda. With friends like the National Party, dairy farmers in Australia sure don't need enemies. No amount of posturing in this place about the beneficial impact of free trade deals for market access for the dairy farmers will remove the memory of Liberal Party and National Party failure in the dairy industry, from deregulation in 2000 to a refusal to act now.
The member for Cook, the Prime Minister, is a failure in agriculture policy. He has no drought policy framework. He has no action on dairy. He is all talk and no action on water infrastructure. There isn't a dam that the Liberal Party has promised to build that has ever been built. It is about time the pretend friends, the National Party, wised up and realised that the show over here hasn't got the slightest bit of interest in the future of the dairy industry. The coalition has had more than five years to implement a dairy code of conduct and they have failed. In budget estimates last February, the government admitted that it had kicked the mandatory code down the road to 1 July 2020. Australia's $4 billion dairy farming industry supports more than 5½ thousand farming families and 42,500 jobs.
I should say that the crisis doesn't just affect dairy farmers; it is also costing jobs in the dairy processing industry. Brancourts, a dairy processing company that has made cheese since 1895, went into administration in September. Thirty-three full-time jobs have been lost in the Latrobe Valley. Twenty full-time jobs have been lost in Hexham near Newcastle. Brancourts cited ongoing stress in the market and a decline in the national milk supply as the reason for their closure. In August, Nestle announced a factory closure at Tongala in northern Victoria—106 jobs were lost. In May Fonterra announced a factory closure in Dennington, south-west Victoria—108 jobs were lost. Murray Goulburn has closed factories in Victoria and Tasmania, and at least 360 jobs have been lost. That is a litany of failure in terms of dairy farming families, it is a litany of failure in terms of dairy farming capability and it's a litany of failure in terms of secondary food processing jobs that people in country towns rely upon to maintain a decent standard of living for their families. And that's a failure that can be put at the feet of the people who've been in government over the course of the last six years.
Senators in this place and the people of Australia can be absolutely assured that, in government, Labor would act to implement an ACCC review and would act to move towards a farmgate price. The Australian dairy farming industry is in crisis. It's not alone. The American industry is in crisis, as is the industry in the European Union. The dairy farmers in the United States and the dairy farmers in Europe have had their governments actually stand up for them and actually take steps to protect their industry and to protect dairy farming jobs.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (19:16): I rise in support of Senator Hanson's proposition. We did not support Senator Hanson's motion before, because we did not support the exact solution that she was proposing, but we absolutely stand by our farmers. We could, of course, listen to the government on this matter, but I actually prefer to listen to the farmers, and they are saying they are in trouble. Our farmers are in trouble. We are shortly to become a net importer of milk. So, when the government says, 'Nothing to see here,' they're right, because soon there will be nothing to see here, and it's a significant problem. We didn't support Senator Hanson's specific solution, because it's actually a really complex problem. It's a really complex problem that requires multiple adjustments in order to give our farmers a fair go, as the Prime Minister is often keen to say.
We start off, of course, with the first problem being that, as Senator Sterle mentioned before, we allowed the sale of $1 milk in supermarkets. When people now talk about $1.10 and $1.20, people need to understand that creates a perception that milk is less valuable than water. When you buy a bottle of water you'll find out that it's much more expensive than milk. How that works out as a proposition is completely foreign to me. One of the solutions there, as mentioned by Senator McDonald—I trust she will support us when it comes to divesture—is, in actual fact, to put in place divestiture laws that will assist. We do have changes to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, as mentioned by Senator Whish-Wilson, but we need to go further. We need to implement divestiture laws. If it's okay to implement them for the electricity sector, it's okay to go more broadly, so I will welcome everyone's support when that amendment that I've put to the chamber in respect of extending that power across all market sectors for any monopoly engaging in egregious conduct is voted on.
There's also the market imbalance in respect of farmgate prices. Once again as Senator Sterle mentioned, there have been a number of inquiries. There was an ACCC inquiry. There was a Senate inquiry back in 2011. And there was a Senate inquiry in 2017. When I look at the recommendations of that Senate inquiry and the recommendations supported by the government, the government has done nothing. In fact, if I wanted to go and look for the response to the 2017 economics committee report I wouldn't find it because the government hasn't responded to it. Even though coalition senators indicated they supported a number of the recommendations, the government has failed to respond to this report. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [19:24]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Membership
The PRESIDENT ( 19:28 ): Order! I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (19:28): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Australia's Family Law System—Joint Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Ayres
Appointed—
Senator Polley
Participating members: Senators Ayres, Bilyk, Brown, Carr, Chisholm, Ciccone, Dodson, Farrell, Gallacher, Gallagher, Green, Keneally, Kitching, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, O'Neill, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh, Watt and Wong
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Gallacher to replace Senator Green for the committee's inquiry into the impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment
Participating member: Senator Green
Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee—
Discharged—Senator Van
Appointed—Senator Henderson
Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Marielle Smith
Participating members: Senators Ayres, Bilyk, Brown, Carr, Chisholm, Ciccone, Dodson, Farrell, Gallacher, Gallagher, Green, Keneally, Kitching, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh, Watt and Wong
Privileges—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Sinodinos
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Road Safety—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ayres, Bilyk, Brown, Carr, Chisholm, Ciccone, Dodson, Farrell, Gallagher, Green, Keneally, Kitching, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh, Watt and Wong.
ADJOURNMENT
The PRESIDENT (19:28): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Vocational Education and Training
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (19:29): Creating and retaining regional jobs are the most significant issues of our generation, which is why Labor is 100 per cent focused on ensuring that we meet this challenge. Employment of any kind should be safe and secure and should remunerate the individual such that they can improve their economic and social circumstances. TAFE, or vocational education, has a fundamental role to play in this space.
The alignment of education and training with industry-skills needs must occur. This synergy can only occur when employment trajectories are underway, in relation to sectors and subsectors and the skill profiles of the community, and access to education and training is available. It is essential that, to prepare the regional workforce for the jobs of the future, skill supply aligns with skill demand. Sadly, under this Morrison government, TAFE and regional jobs are under attack.
The Examiner newspaper in my home state of Tasmania revealed yesterday that TAFE Tasmania is under-resourced and under increased strain, as students have their courses cancelled mid-semester and staff continue to resign. Furthermore, a corporate plan released by the organisation notes that its infrastructure is below standard and there is no plan for investment, with the Liberals at a state and federal level committed to cuts. Then, today The Examiner revealed that it will be closing the Launceston city campus. It will now move to Alanvale, as the University of Tasmania is moving from there to Inveresk. When city campuses are booming and becoming the norm, the decision to relocate TasTAFE from the city to Alanvale seems totally illogical.
Because of the Liberals' cuts to TAFE, people are suffering needlessly. Students at TasTAFE have been forced to put their lives on hold, with courses being cancelled with no prior warning. Further to this, teachers are being worked to the bone and pushed into doing more classes because they are being forced to work with reduced resources, creating even more pressure on the institution. What have we heard from Mrs Archer, the Liberal member for Bass? Nothing. Why isn't Mrs Archer standing up for our TAFE campuses in Tasmania and, in particular, in her electorate of Bass?
The fact that information technology students were in the middle of a course and it was cancelled is extraordinary. It's an indictment on TAFE Tasmania under the Liberals. These students' lives have been put on hold, and they are under increased stress because of the government's decisions. One student said: 'I had to have some lengthy conversations with Centrelink. It caused some trouble because they didn't understand why I was still a student but wasn't going to classes.' A right-to-information request shows that between May 2017 and August 2019 10 teachers have resigned from TasTAFE employment. TasTAFE considers the bulk of its infrastructure to be below standard for modern vocational education and training.
This government talks big on vocational training and jobs, but instead of investing in TAFE and jobs it has gutted TAFE and training. The Liberals have cut over $3 billion from TAFE apprenticeships and vocational education. TAFE campuses have been closed, and jobs and vocational education courses have been lost under the Morrison government's watch, while government funding for private, for-profit operators has soared. What we have seen is the proliferation of unscrupulous operators looking to cash in by charging exorbitant fees for poor quality training. This has shattered employment opportunities and enrolments in TAFE. They have declined nearly 800,000 since 2015 to 680,000 in 2017. More should be done. But what have we heard from Mrs Archer in Bass? Nothing. What have we heard from the Liberal Senate team in Tasmania? Absolutely nothing. This government should hang its head in shame.
We need to educate young people and we need to educate the workers of the future with the skills that they need. Nothing could be more important to the Tasmanian economy. Nothing could be more important to the social fabric of our communities. So I'm calling on this government, particularly Mrs Archer, the federal member in Bass, to stand up for TAFE Tasmania, to stand up for the Launceston campus and to stand up to the Prime Minister and demand that funding is restored to TAFE so we can have the skills of the future that will be needed to provide the economy we need in Tasmania. (Time expired)
Newstart Allowance
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:34): I rise to talk about the impacts that the low rate of Newstart is having on the mental and physical health of those accessing our social safety net. According to Mental Health Australia:
People receiving income support payments are more likely than the general population to be living with a mental illness or experiencing severe psychological distress. Nearly half (48%) of Newstart recipients report experiencing a 'mental or behavioural problem'.
Poverty is one of the social determinants of health, as it relates to the availability of resources to meet people's daily needs. Newstart is so low that it is not enabling people to meet their daily needs. Therefore, alleviating poverty is one of the essential parts of improving health outcomes for people stuck on Newstart. This is Anti-Poverty Week. Let's get real about what is making people ill while they're on Newstart. There is strong evidence that income support recipients have higher rates of mental illness compared to the general population and that financial hardship is a key determinant of an individual's mental health and wellbeing. Mental Health Australia said in their submission to the robo-debt inquiry:
Consideration of the impacts of mental illness should be central in the design and delivery of Centrelink services, given experience of mental illness is very common amongst Centrelink customers.
Cohealth, one of Australia's largest not-for-profit community health services, said that their clients:
… describe the significant impacts on their physical and mental health stemming from the low rate of Newstart …
Cohealth also said they:
Are unable to pay for essential medications
Delay seeking treatment for health conditions
Are unable to pay for transport to attend medical appointments
Live with ongoing pain as a result of delayed dental care and inability to afford pain relief
Live with constant stress about their very survival
The stress of living on the low rate of Newstart can both exacerbate mental health issues and be a factor in the development of mental health issues. Data from ANU shows that around one-fifth of the increased risk of mental health issues for Newstart recipients could be directly attributed to their experience of financial hardship. People who have recently experienced financial hardship are 22 per cent more likely to experience decreased mental health in the next year, and people experiencing severe psychological distress are 89 per cent more likely to experience financial hardship in the next year.
This government, by refusing to increase Newstart, is literally contributing to making people sick. Their policies are keeping people in poverty. Policies like robo-debt and the targeted compliance framework are contributing to people's ill health. They make people anxious and desperate. They are living in constant fear that they'll be hit by a debt or have to go through the process of having to prove they don't owe one, when they are already living with significant challenges, given that they are living in poverty. Living on $40 a day keeps people in poverty. A high-functioning social security system would be fair, easy to access and navigate, and would avoid exacerbating known health conditions whenever possible. The Newstart program, youth allowance and the way the government implements its compliance regime have moved Australians further away from this goal. Our harsh compliance system causes severe stress for people already experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage.
Some people experiencing mental illness may be particularly vulnerable, as they may not have the capacity to acknowledge a robo-debt, to fully understand their rights and options for a review or to negotiate repayment. It cannot be overemphasised how distressing the process of receiving a compliance notice is for so many people. The government's approach is humiliating, stigmatising and demonising to people on income support. In a country as wealthy as Australia we really need to ask why we are failing so spectacularly at delivering social services and what the impact of our failing income support system is on our communities' economic equality, mental health and quality of life. When people are living below the poverty line, we cannot say we have a functional income support system or social safety net. We need to be increasing Newstart and youth allowance. (Time expired)
Indigenous Affairs
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (19:39): I rise tonight to report on an amazing experience that I shared with Linda Burney, the member for Barton, and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy a couple of weeks ago up in the Pilbara. We had the absolute privilege and honour to meet with 100 women from right across the Pilbara. We met on the lands of the Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi peoples in Roebourne. We met at the cultural centre. We met with women to talk about and listen to the issues of concern to them.
I really want to pay tribute tonight to the amazing women in the Pilbara who assisted us and participated on the day. Thank you to Aunty Elaine Clifton, who welcomed us so warmly to country. Thank you also to Josie Alec and Jolleen Hicks, who worked with us before the event and during the event. Watching them as potential leaders and emerging leaders working with the other women and seeing the respect that they received across the room was absolutely amazing. They are true leaders. Josie led us at the end of the day in a song in language. She's quite an accomplished country singer. Look her up. She's definitely worth listening to.
We had Aboriginal women scribing on the day. I would like to thank Aunty Joyce Drummond, Esther Montgomery, Val Ross, Julie Walker, Natasha Walker, Shanine Ryan and Michelle Adams, who so freely gave their time and made sure that the day worked. The women wanted us to record and listen to their issues around health and wellbeing; education and youth; culture, country and language; housing and homelessness. These are topics that, in consultation with the women, we put together on the day. We've just about finished writing the report. The report will go back to those women and we will develop together a roadmap for trying to achieve some change that's so desperately needed by these women. They want to make sure that services they receive from government are culturally safe for the region and that service providers are trained in how to operate in a culturally appropriate manner. They want to create opportunities for local Aboriginal members of the community to be trained and provided with leadership roles in different services rather than just flying someone in and flying someone out who has no rapport with the community. Women told us that the white government cars leave communities on Friday and come back on Monday.
They want their youth to be healthy, they want them to be educated and, most importantly, they want them to have access to their own language. We heard women speak passionately about the need to learn language when what's offered in their school is Japanese or Indonesian. Those are well respected languages, but their own native language is not offered. It's time we stopped doing that. Let's make Indigenous languages available for kids to learn. They want the perpetual funding cycle—having to reapply every two to three years—to stop. They want to see long-term funding for programs so that they can get answers to issues, put real policy decisions in place and know that they can create real change, because they would not be having the funding base forever changed.
During the lunchbreak we had a film presented to us by a local woman called May Byrne—Gunthay to Gunthay, which means 'Grandmother to Grandchild'—and we saw the beautiful relationship that May has with her grandchild as she took the child out on country and taught the child about country. The film was made in May's country at Karijini National Park.
The women eagerly supported the forum. Many of them said it hadn't been done before. We had women from not just Roebourne but Wickham, Port Hedland, South Hedland, Karratha and Yandeyarra. We thank the Aboriginal-led organisations that made sure the women got there. We also thank Yara Pilbara, AAB Australia and the WA Labor Party for so generously sponsoring the events, because, obviously, things don't just happen; they need to be well funded. I look forward to a continued relationship with these women. I'm very excited about going back and presenting our report to them and developing our roadmap.
Aboriginal Traditional Medicine
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (19:44): I rise to speak to the increasing use of Aboriginal traditional medicine as a complementary service in Australian public health care. I want to first commend the unique work of Dr Francesca Panzironi in this field. In 2013, Dr Panzironi published an informative report regarding the status of Aboriginal traditional medicine in Australia, Hand-in-hand: report on Aboriginal traditional medicine. The key finding of this report was that, while Australia is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is no overarching policy or legislative framework that recognises Aboriginal traditional medicine within Australia. This is contrary to article 24.1 of the UN declaration, which explicitly states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals.
Article 31 of the declaration goes on to state that Indigenous people have the right to 'maintain, control, protect and develop' their traditional knowledge in all its diversity and that states 'shall take effective measures to recognise and protect' these rights. However, there is still no overarching or cohesive legislative or policy framework at a state or federal level that recognises the actual role of traditional healers.
Since Dr Panzironi's report, the Anangu Ngangkari Tjutaku Aboriginal Corporation, or ANTAC, has been established in my home state of SA under the governance and direction of traditional healers from the APY lands. ANTAC offers Aboriginal traditional healing to local hospitals and regional and remote clinics in South Australia, as well as various locations interstate, including WA, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Overall, ANTAC services reach close to 100 different government agencies, health services and community centres around Australia, and demand is very much growing. Their services are provided through various ad hoc arrangements at state and local community levels, but there is still no cohesive funding model or policy framework that supports or recognises Ngangkari healing.
The delivery of these essential traditional treatments around Australia is a complex undertaking that requires substantial logistical and administrative support. Since the Hand-in-hand report, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023 and the related implementation plan recognised the cultural and holistic significance of traditional healing for Aboriginal health and wellbeing. These documents affirm the need for collaboration between traditional healers and the Western mainstream health sector as part of an integrated healthcare approach from Aboriginal people. The health plan documents also note the need to develop an evidence base that includes traditional healing and cultural models of care. I'm unaware of any research or funding that has progressed this strategy.
I recognise there are complexities when diverse cultural perspectives, world views and knowledge systems converge in the provision of health care. This is not new and is an ongoing challenge. However, this is not about the superiority of one approach over another. Rather, it is about realigning our approaches to health care to recognise diverse systems as equally valid, according to the culture and world view in which they are adopted. Aboriginal traditional medicine is equally valid, according to its own traditional knowledge and practice. Importantly, recognition of Aboriginal traditional medicine in state and federal legislation and policy will provide a strategic pathway towards closing the gap in health outcomes for Indigenous Australians—a target that has not been achieved under previous strategies.
Putting Aboriginal traditional medicine on the formal health research agenda will also support the development of traditional healing and align with the current national health plan. Noting that $160 million has been allocated from the 2019-2020 health budget to the Indigenous Health Research Fund, it makes sense to include Aboriginal traditional medicine on that agenda. This is perfectly compatible with Minister Hunt's focus on 'improving primary health care, overcoming the origins of inequality in health, reducing the burden of disease and addressing emerging challenges'.
Western Australia: Infrastructure
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:49): I was delighted recently to be able to join WA state Labor member for Bunbury, Don Punch, in his electorate. We had a terrific time discussing the importance of the manufacturing industry to Bunbury's long-term future success. I had the delightful opportunity of visiting some of the great projects in the region that the McGowan government has been investing in. These investments are not only in Bunbury but in regional towns right around the state. Receiving full support from the state government, Don Punch has been acting as a very, very strong advocate for the Bunbury community. I would like to highlight to the chamber today some of these projects, which include greater road and transport development and upgrades to things like the Bussell Highway.
This community needs greater safety for those using the road, which is the main route to the locations and tourist hotspots around Bunbury, including Dunsborough and Margaret River. The impact on local residents of the congestion that takes place was quite notable in the recent school holidays and at other times because these roads have not yet been upgraded. It's time to make it safer for those accessing Bussell Highway from the housing areas along the route in Gelorup and Dalyellup. These places are suburban communities that have a major road going through them and to the city. Sometimes, when traffic builds up, it can take a long time to get from your suburban community, across the major traffic lanes and into the town of Bunbury and other places. They've been crying out for something to be done about it, so I'm very pleased to highlight to the chamber today the McGowan government's commitment to that.
I was also delighted to see the development of the Dolphin Discovery Centre, which was in fact the work of Don Punch when he was with the development commission there. Everyone loves dolphins and they love discovering them, but it's even better to be able to sit down and do it in a lovely environment with a cup of tea. It has been a good tourist boon for the city of Bunbury, and one that should be maintained and invested in. It was crying out to be complemented and built up in what it delivers to the community.
We've also seen essential upgrades to health services that have been prioritised in the greater Bunbury area, such as improvements to the Bunbury Regional Hospital, with the McGowan government committing nearly $23 million for improvements and upgrades. These new initiatives have a focus on local content and local jobs for the greater Bunbury area. This is what's at the heart of the Labor government's work in Western Australia: local jobs and infrastructure creation. These initiatives have been very much welcomed by the Bunbury community. They are seen to be boosting the local economy and boosting Bunbury's endeavours for their future growth.
Don has shown me where the Australind train service arrives in Bunbury from Perth. The McGowan government is investing in a new train which will be manufactured in Western Australia as part of the METRONET manufacturing rail plan. This underscores the need for a national rail plan, which was one of Labor's policies at the last federal election. This is about manufacturing jobs in Western Australia and around the nation.
My trip to Bunbury ended with a sundowner with the Bunbury Geographe Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It was great to be discussing policy and commitments to drive manufacturing in the region with these local businesses. In particular, I want to say thanks to the chamber president, Ron Skipsey, and the CEO, Mark Seaward, for their invitation to meet with members, and thanks to all those who came along.
Finally, I want to give my thanks to Don Punch MLA for hosting me in his community. He is a tireless advocate for the community he loves and, as he says, proudly Bunbury.
Climate Change
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (19:53): As I rise tonight, I want to acknowledge that we are in a climate emergency. Our planet is headed for a level of global heating that will cause unimaginable devastation. We're going to see mass civil dislocation, water shortages, food shortages, wars, death and disease on an unimaginable scale. Much of our world is on track to become uninhabitable in our lifetimes. Here in Australia, our rivers are running dry. Our fire season now extends well beyond the summer months. In parts of the east coast of Australia and in my home state of Tasmania we've seen forests that just don't burn—and in Tasmania's case have never burned before—but have burned in recent years.
This is the new normal of climate catastrophe, the inevitable end result of disaster capitalism. In response, the major parties in this place have simply doubled down on the fossil fuels, the extraction and the burning of coal, oil and gas. They are the prime drivers of this devastation. Worse still, they have created and are in the process of creating systems of protection for themselves, their families and their mates. They're creating a 'fortress Australia' that they hope will insulate people like them from the breakdown of our climate. It's why the major parties are criminalising protest right across this country. They are preparing their response to the mass civil disobedience that they can see blooming on our streets right now. They're doing this by enacting a rolling series of draconian bills that create the powers of a police state and a surveillance state. Those powers march us down the road to authoritarianism, totalitarianism and ultimately fascism. If people don't think that is possible in 21st-century Australia, I suggest that they study a bit of human history.
The so-called border protection regime will be a key plank. It's been set up to keep out those unfortunate people who will bear the brunt of the climate emergency, just as surely as it has been used to punish those fleeing war and persecution. Make no mistake: in the coming decades, unless we change our ways, this offshore detention regime and the boat turnbacks will be used ruthlessly against climate refugees. Those who are white, wealthy and permanent citizens of this country will be kept on one side of the fence, or the moat, and those who are not will be forcibly kept out. We are being marched down the road to a new form of eco-fascism—or, if you like, eco-barbarism.
But there is another way. We have to dismantle the systems of oppression and of capital accumulation that are causing so much damage to our planet and its people. The climate movement that we are seeing around the world, including Extinction Rebellion, carries within it the seeds of hope for our future, because young people are not scared of big ideas, and more and more we are seeing middle-aged and older people joining—and power to their collective arms. People on the streets don't want to be there. They feel that they have to be there. They are there because they see more clearly than most in this place the fundamental injustice of climate change, and they have the willingness, the capacity and the ability to fight back. And I make a personal commitment that the Greens and I personally will stand with them in their fight.
Anti-Poverty Week
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (19:58): I rise tonight to speak about poverty in our country during this Anti-Poverty Week. It is important to take time in this place to really remind ourselves just how tough some Australians are doing it and how many Australians are just one pay cheque away from a crisis. It really is shocking that in Australia, one of the richest countries in the world, so many people are stuck struggling to pay for the essentials in life—food, energy, health care, housing and transport. The 2018 ACOSS report Poverty in Australia found that 13.2 per cent of Australians were living below the poverty line. That is more than three million people, including 739,000 children. This is shameful. As a country, we should be doing better than this.
No family should have to make the decision about whether they can afford to buy a textbook that their child needs for school or whether they can actually afford to put table on the food that night. The Foodbank Hunger Report found that 14 per cent of Australians are eating less food than they need due to a lack of money. Just think about that. No-one should have to go without food in Australia, one of the richest countries in the world. And there are so many more Australians who are a stone's throw away from being in this situation. Take Jacqui, whose story was featured on SBS last week. Jacqui has three degrees and used to have her own business. But when she was diagnosed with cancer and could no longer work she was forced onto Newstart payments. Jacqui could no longer afford the rent and was made homeless while undergoing her chemotherapy. And what about Louise, a former nurse, who told her story to the ABC last year. After Louise's husband passed away, she was left as the sole carer of their four children. She described just how hard it became to put food on the table once their savings were gone. She said that, some nights, she and her eldest son would go without food in order that the younger children could eat that night.
The problem for Jacqui, Louise and the millions of Australians who find themselves living below the poverty line is that there is no adequate safety net in our country anymore. The poverty line has increased from roughly $280 per week in the late 1990s to $430 per week in 2016. Compare that with the rate of change in the Newstart payment. Newstart payments just have not kept up. Again, there is no adequate safety net for people like Jacqui and Louise in Australia today. The rate of Newstart is now significantly below the poverty line, especially compared to two decades ago. What really concerns me about the situation is that I just cannot see this government taking action to tackle what is a national shame. The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has suggested in the past that 'the harder you work, the better you do'. What the Prime Minister is essentially saying is that if you are poor it's your own fault. ACOSS estimates that 38 per cent of those living below the poverty line are in work. Prime Minister, are they just not working hard enough? And what about those who desperately want to find work but cannot afford transport or appropriate clothing to attend interviews? What about the people who are locked out of work because of poverty and because of the low rate of Newstart?
It won't solve poverty overnight, but a good way to make life a lot easier for so many Australians would be to increase the rate of Newstart. It seems that everyone except for this government knows that Newstart is way too low. Newstart, rather than helping people find work, is pushing them into poverty and actually now stopping them from getting a job. So Labor is committed to raising Newstart, and the government need to act. This is their responsibility. The Prime Minister needs to explain to us exactly why he has ruled out helping Australians who are doing it tough.
Disability: Bamboo Projects
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (20:03): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to celebrate the effort of an energetic and passionate young man, Chris Paterson, his wife, Kristy, and their family. The family recently embarked on its latest venture, as Chris runs, cycles and paddles 50 kilometres a day around Australia to raise funds for their charity and voluntary work. The family works voluntarily to support those in need, including the physically handicapped, the impaired and people suffering from mental health conditions.
Chris Paterson and his wife, Kristy, started and now run Australia's first boat giving the handicapped access to water for therapeutic purposes. They first raised funds to buy the boat at a price of $60,000 and heavily modified it to make it accessible to wheelchairs—our country's first such boat offering a free service catering to mental health support. Chris and Kristy have since invested five years working voluntarily to bring the benefits to people less fortunate. Their two boys—Jack, aged 12, and Cooper, aged 10—have worked alongside them because Chris and his wife Kristy, who is an environmental scientist, believe it is the most productive way of educating their children and the most productive way of caring for our planet.
Here are some of this remarkable and generous family's milestones, achievements and future plans: Bamboo Projects, a mental health and disability support charity founded by people who have overcome their own mental health battles, established in 2014; registered charities since 2017; NDIS provider since 2018; raised funds and received a $10,000 council grant towards the therapeutic boat. They support 60 to 70 people per week by providing access and inclusion to outdoor activities on the wheelchair boat. Some participants have travelled 2½ hours just to use these services. Other organisations, such as Sailability Sunshine Coast and scar tree Indigenous youth mentoring, use the wheelchair boat for their participants.
They hold monthly community events that include mental health chats with families while the children enjoy kids arts and crafts and jumping castles. Amazingly, up to 400 people attend these events. They facilitate back-to-work programs through cleaning up the waterways and that allow for a comfortable and supportive environment for people to gain skills to transition back into the mainstream workforce. They hold regular events cleaning up the waterways to clean up the beaches and waterfronts. They teach children sustainable ways to care for and protect the environment.
The family's latest project is Keep Moving Forward, and that involves holding 60 pop-up mental health events all over Australia in remote, Indigenous and farming communities. Why? Because that is where the suicide rates are highest. Their discussions with residents in these regions conclude that they would like a more holistic approach, such as the service that Chris and Kristy offer, and that regional communities would benefit from outdoor therapies that the couple provide on the Sunshine Coast.
Chris and Kristy say that every week they field several calls from people who are being let down by headspace and Beyond Blue, as both these agencies have waiting lists of over six weeks. This is hard for me to understand since these established charities receive significant funding, yet our couple are denied government funding because they provide a non-clinical service. The response given is: enough money is already put towards mental health and disability support services, yet the rate of suicide is continually increasing. Another approach is needed. Frustrations abound.
For example, through meetings with the Queensland Labor council the couple requested funding for the wheelchair access boat in 2017. They were told to get a parliamentary petition to see if the community would be happy for their tax dollars to go towards it. In just two months they received 8,200 signatures, over 7,000 of those were handwritten signatures gained from face-to-face conversations about Bamboo Projects, their charity. The petition was tabled through parliament in Queensland, yet the Labor government denied support and denied the request of over 8,000 taxpayers. The couple's future plans include building an education hub, which during its construction would involve youth at risk, the homeless and those participating in back-to-work programs to assist with building the hub.
Please research Bamboo Projects, attend an event, donate funds or give encouragement to support Chris and Kristy as Chris cycles, runs and paddles around our nation raising money for fighting mental health challenges across our families, communities and nation.
Anti-Poverty Week
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (20:08): This week is Anti-Poverty Week. Here in the parliament it is vital that political leaders recognise that in a country as lucky as ours 13 per cent of Australians live below the poverty line.
I was born in Murwillumbah on the North Coast of New South Wales. There, almost a third of children are living below the poverty line. Kids deserve a life of opportunity, but if their families are struggling to afford basic items like uniforms, school supplies and lunches, it's pretty hard for kids to imagine anything else but the harsh reality of their day-to-day lives
One report from ACOSS featured a story of a woman named Ellen talking about her kids and she said:
You can't live on Newstart. I eat one meal a day so the kids can eat. My sweet girl says I should eat more. I was a nurse for 27 years. All my savings have gone. I'm in so much debt. I try my best but feel so ashamed.
It's a pretty horrible story. And the thing is that one of the factors entrenching poverty in many communities is the disgracefully low rate of Newstart. For parents and carers raising children below the poverty line, it is difficult to make ends meet. In the electorate of Page, thousands of Australians are forced to live on just $40 a day. Across Lismore, Kyogle, the Clarence Valley and the Richmond Valley, almost 8,000 people are receiving Newstart or youth allowance payments, and they are struggling to cover basic costs like rent, bills and food. But the Prime Minister refuses to even consider raising the rate of Newstart, and that's despite overwhelming calls from the community, peak organisations, the Business Council of Australia and even the Reserve Bank governor to increase the payment. Recent reports and economic studies have found that raising the rate of Newstart would inject billions of dollars into the Australian economy and boost local economies in regions that need it the most. That is vital for areas like Lismore, with many local businesses still recovering from the impacts of the flood in 2017. While the electorate of Page would benefit from an increase to Newstart, the local member, Mr Kevin Hogan, refuses to stand up for his community.
The Prime Minister often says the best form of welfare is a job, and he's not entirely wrong, because dignified, secure work has been the hallmark of Australia and a measure of our prosperous society. But, as the BCA and many others have pointed out, the low rate of Newstart is a barrier to people re-entering the workforce. If you are receiving Newstart and struggling to pay your bills, how can you possibly afford the things you need for a job interview, like a phone, internet access, clothes and transport? And that situation is so much worse in regional areas where public transport is pretty much non-existent. But the Nationals leader and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McCormack, recently suggested that people should move towns to find a job. I'd like to see him pick up his family and move towns, because it's not as easy as it sounds, not when you're living on $40 a day.
There are many things the government would prefer not to mention about the Newstart payment, like the fact that one in four Australians receiving Newstart are over 55 and at greater risk of age discrimination in the workforce, or the fact that over 130,000 people on Newstart do have a job but don't receive enough hours or income to get off the payment. Refusing to raise Newstart, refusing to even consider it, is not merely economically irresponsible but inhumane. People deserve to live, not just to survive. Australia is one of the richest countries in the world, yet over three million people are experiencing poverty. It's unacceptable, and the government must do something about it urgently.
Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation: 40th Anniversary
Sadadeen Primary School
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (20:12): I rise to congratulate Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs on their 40th anniversary celebrations. Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation has been part of Alice Springs for 40 years, delivering services, creating jobs and advocating for improved housing, safety and respectful partnerships with town campers and the wider community. The organisation was formed by town campers for town campers, born out of the struggle for land rights in the 1970s. Town camps have been part of Alice Springs since the early years, before the town was gazetted as Stuart in 1888. As Aboriginal people around Central Australia were driven off their lands, many settled around Stuart, then Alice Springs. The fringe camps served as ration stations, labour camps and access to what limited services were available in the frontier town. The policy of forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their families also contributed to the growth of the town camps. Families followed their children into the township, where the stolen children were housed in a facility called the Bungalow. The families set up camps on the fringes of the settlement to try and maintain a connection with their children.
During the 1900s the official government policy was to rid Alice Springs of the camps, but town campers resisted and persisted. Strong leaders emerged to work and advocate for an improvement to living conditions—for basic rights such as shelter, clean water and access to services the rest of the town took for granted. They were families such as the Rubuntjas, with the two strong brothers who were founders of Tangentyere, the Armstrongs, the Campbells, the Williams, the Stevens, the Furbers, thes Hayes, the Hamptons, the Liddles, the McCormacks, the Lynches, the Smiths, the Forresters, the Malbunkas—and so many more whose families today continue as proud town campers.
They are families such as the Shaws. Geoffrey Shaw OAM was the first general manager of Tangentyere and today serves as president. His son Walter Shaw, the CEO of Tangentyere, is a strong and vocal supporter of town campers and their rights. Geoff's daughter Barb Shaw has played many roles in the organisation and was pivotal, along with Geoff's wife, Eileen Hoosan, in establishing many of the services for women and families run by Tangentyere. The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these founders are proud town campers today, raising their families and contributing to their community.
In the mid-1970s town campers began organising into individual associations and corporations, negotiating with governments to gain legal status and security of land tenure over the town camps. A group called Tunkatjira was formed in 1974 to support town campers in getting land, shelter, services, transport, firewood and garbage collection. At the same time, the Aboriginal Land Rights Commissioner recommended that leases be granted for town camp areas. The first town camps were granted special purpose leases by the government in 1976. Tunkatjira was officially incorporated in 1979 and the spelling changed to Tangentyere, an Arrernte word meaning 'all speaking together'.
Each town camp comprises a largely distinct Indigenous community based on language and kinship groups. Town camp residents often have strong links with remote communities and the geographic location of many camps reflect these links. The conservative service population estimates for the 16 town camps is between 1,950 and 3,300 people. The population fluctuates according to the time of year and events in town and outbush. Through the 1980s Tangentyere continued to work towards securing leases, building houses, developing employment programs and delivering services, often in the face of government resistance.
Fast forward to December 2009. Fourteen of the 15 housing association members of Tangentyere signed 40-year subleases with the Commonwealth government, in return for a commitment of $100 million over five years to upgrade housing and essential infrastructure. Tangentyere continues to work to assert town campers' rights and support them to exercise control and self-determination over their own lives and homes.
Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation is one of the largest employers of Aboriginal people in Australia and is a significant employer and economic contributor to Alice Springs. The council has established businesses and social enterprises, including Tangentyere Constructions, Tangentyere Artists, Central Australian Affordable Housing Company and also Tangentyere Designs—lovely clothing. I honour the determination and commitment to Tangentyere's founders and their success in persevering, against the odds, to secure a future for present and future generations of town campers. I also pay tribute to the strength of town campers and their contribution to the wider communities not only amongst the Alice Springs population but also around Central Australia in general.
Whilst I'm in Central Australia I'd also like to congratulate Sadadeen Primary School in Alice Springs. They were named one of the winners in the 2019 Indigenous Language Song Competition. This competition invites students from primary and secondary schools right across Australia to translate and perform the Marrin Gamu song in the first language of their area. Students from Sadadeen performed in the Arrernte language. The musical initiative encourages schools to build a relationship with their local Indigenous community and be led by them in sharing the first languages of their region.
As this year is the International Year of Indigenous Languages, it is a significant year to support and sustain First Nations languages. But we want it to happen every year, not just in this special year. We want Aboriginal languages to keep going for quite a long time. Since its launch in 2016, more than 3,000 students from 80 schools across Australia have entered the annual competition, submitting videos in 52 First Nations languages. How awesome is that! This year, almost 100 schools participated nationally, contributing videos in 60 languages—60 languages! And there's more: organised by First Languages Australia and ABC Education, a record six winners were announced for the 2019 Indigenous Language Song Competition. First Languages Australia manager, Faith Baisden, explained: 'We know from feedback from other years that this is a powerful learning tool. The language words stay with the students because of the fact that they are learned in a song, and the process of working on Marrin Gamu with the local community language teacher means that the cultural significance of the language is also respectfully taught.'
I am enormously pleased to see this important initiative go from strength to strength, helping keep First Nations languages very much alive and well in this country. It certainly continues to hold a very special place, and I make particular mention of the Northern Territory, where we have over 100 First Nations languages very much going from strength to strength. But there are some that definitely need a great deal of support. In this year, in particular, we need to ensure that those languages continue to thrive and survive. I congratulate Sadadeen Primary School and all the winners of this very exciting competition.
Whetton, Dr Penny
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (20:22): I rise to pay tribute to the life of the late Dr Penny Whetton, who died suddenly in September this year. Penny was an amazing human being. She was a scientist, an artist, a nature lover, an advocate, a devoted wife and a parent to two beautiful children. I met Penny through her wife, my dear friend and colleague Senator Janet Rice.
It's rare to find two people as in love, supportive and committed as Penny and Janet were to each other. Penny and Janet met on a university field trip in 1981, and what started as a whirlwind romance based on a mutual love of all things science and nature blossomed. For two meteorology students and self-proclaimed nerds, I can't think of a more romantic setting than flying and tracking pilot balloons to help out with phase 2 of the cold fronts research project. For the nearly 40 years since, they have been practically inseparable. As their family grew, welcoming their two beautiful children, John and Leon, into the world, the pair had only become more devoted and more in love.
For those who didn't know her, to say that Penny was intelligent would be an understatement. Penny was actually a polymath. Of course, her true passion was in climate science and the natural world, but she was a photographer and a painter, and she was fascinated with Greek and Roman history. She developed other passions in linguistics, learning Latin, furniture making and even becoming an expert on volcanic eruption sites of western Victoria. The list just kept growing and growing. Penny was fascinated with the world around her, and she was an expert on just about everything.
Penny's loss is heartbreaking. While she was far too modest to ever say it, her impact on the world was enormous. As many people know by now, Penny was an extremely accomplished scientist in the field of climatology. Penny was a leader in the area of climate projections, producing credible views of our future climate if we follow different emission scenarios and making these vivid for all audiences. She worked tirelessly towards mapping out the impacts of climate change. In fact, much of our understanding of the impacts of climate change and the impact it will have on Australia and the Pacific comes from Penny's work with the CSIRO and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Her talent and hard work were rewarded with an extraordinary career that saw her work with the UN's IPCC, the EU, the CSIRO and the Victorian government, and collaborate with countless scientists across Australia and the world. She was a lead author of the regionalisation and climate scenarios chapters of the third IPCC report, the regional projections chapter of the fourth IPCC report and the Australasia chapter of the fifth assessment report. It was in 2007 that the fourth IPCC report was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Penny shared in that prize. Penny also led CSIRO's national climate projections work from 1992 to 2014. Finally, her work helping to lead the Victorian government's efforts to reduce their emissions was published in June this year after she co-authored the interim emissions reduction targets for Victoria.
Time and again her work received accolades, but she wasn't in it for praise. She worked so hard because she understood the importance of supporting global efforts to cut carbon pollution and protect the natural environment. Throughout her distinguished career the high esteem in which her colleagues, collaborators, students and proteges held her cannot be understated. She was a trailblazer who pioneered groundbreaking work in her field, and that work is now taken for granted as standard operation worldwide. She was a collaborative, insightful and inspiring leader who brought the best out in people. She was a mentor to many throughout her career, helping to educate, guide and nurture a generation of scientists. She built teams and encouraged different perspectives and fostered an environment of collaboration, rather than competition, wherever she went.
Penny also felt a deep anger about current politics and the collective lack of action bringing us ever closer to the climate crisis. She found it troubling that our political leaders ignored the science and she was distraught in the face of our climate emergency. While her talent and enthusiasm for climate science propelled her career to stellar heights, it was her passion that made her an advocate and her fortitude that made her an activist. Of course, this is not the only time that Penny's commitment to doing what is right led her to activism.
Many came to know Penny through her journey with Janet during the campaign to achieve marriage equality in Australia. Along with thousands of other activists, they worked tirelessly to make Australia a fairer, more inclusive society. But for Penny and Janet, that fight was especially personal. Penny often joked while the fight for equality raged that she and Janet were among the few couples in Australia to already be in a same-sex marriage. It seems she was ahead of the times in more than just the fight for action on climate.
Penny was unable to update her legal documentation to reflect her gender, because doing so would require her to divorce her wife. That was the hard reality for married transgender people who wanted to live authentically and continue with their marriage. Janet and Penny faced a unique hardship in their struggle for equal recognition. They had to decide whether to keep their private life private or use that platform to help educate and change the hearts and minds of countless Australians. If you knew Penny, you knew she wasn't interested in any of the glory or the public exposure. She didn't want to expose her private life, her marriage or her family to all of the things that come with being in the public eye. Despite knowing the ugliness that would come their way, together they made the decision to acknowledge the powerful role that they could play in the campaign for a yes vote on same-sex marriage and to share their story publicly. I would like to reflect on that decision for a moment.
For many people, including, I have to say, me, Janet and Penny were the first couple about whom they could put real faces and names to terms they might only have heard before in the abstract—words like 'trans' and 'gender diverse', words that are too often used to peddle fear and division and that are hurled as insults. We all remember the abuse, the hate and the ugliness that was unleashed during the marriage plebiscite. Penny and Janet knew what would come at them and their family, but they chose to look beyond it to see the importance of showing Australia that a happy, fulfilling marriage doesn't look only one way and that a family doesn't only look one way.
Penny knew that her story highlighted the ridiculous discrimination inherent in Australia's marriage laws: that somehow her marriage to Janet was worth less than when both partners were living authentically. Anyone who knew Penny and how devoted she and Janet were to each other would know that that was rubbish. Together, they showed us that love doesn't have to be the same to be equal. In Penny's own words:
I can tell you that mine and Janet's relationship hasn't changed since we became a same-sex couple and we still love each other just like we did before. Our relationship is just the same as anyone else's—wonderful, loving and valuable. We're just waiting for the law to recognise that. It puzzles me that Australia is lagging on this issue. Let's just get it done.
And get it done they did. I'm so grateful to Penny and Janet. They showed uncommon bravery, sharing themselves with the world like that. I learned a great deal from Penny, as many of us did, and I'm so honoured to have gone on that journey with them.
To my dear friend and colleague Janet, some of us joked about how in love you two were. In fact, we were a little envious. This job's a really tough gig, spending so much time away from your family, but you spoke and texted three, four or five times a day. Your devotion to each other never wavered. Janet, I'm so deeply sorry for your loss. We grieve with you at this difficult time. But rest assured, Penny will live on through you, through the work that you do, through your beautiful children, John and Leon, and all that she brought to the world.
Dyslexia
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (20:32): I rise to speak today on the hidden learning disability of dyslexia. This month I will be wearing a ribbon for the Dear Dyslexic Foundation to show my support for people with dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia, which are three hidden learning disabilities which make reading and written communication incredibly hard for those who experience it.
The coalition went to the last election with a commitment to improve literacy across Australia. The Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, has announced strategies to ensure teachers know how to teach literacy, including ensuring phonics can be incorporated into teaching accreditation standards across the nation. Teachers need to be able to teach the five fundamentals of literacy: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency and comprehension. I'm helping all of my children, but especially watching my eldest daughter, learn to read at the moment. She's progressing as expected, getting the words right most of the time and sounding them out when she doesn't know them. Her confidence is growing with each book that she reads. But it's a different story for a child with dyslexia. It is estimated that one in 10 Australians have some form of dyslexia.
Dyslexia is a phonologically based learning disability that results in difficulties processing the sounds of language. People with dyslexia cannot read with speed, fluency and comprehension in the way that others might. Other forms of this disability include dysgraphia, which impacts writing—getting the words from the mind to the page—and dyscalculia, which impacts the ability to process maths and numbers.
In school people with dyslexia are often, and quite unfairly, labelled as lazy or stupid because they can't read. But what they see on the page is a scrambled mess or jumpy words which make no sense. Often a good kid with dyslexia is ignored and passed up when it comes to grades. A kid who is frustrated or embarrassed then sometimes acts out and finds that they will receive attention for doing so, and in some circumstances ends up being disciplined, even expelled, for their trouble. This was the case with Melbourne artist Vincent Fantauzzo, who admitted in The Australian in March this year that he was the class clown because he was covering for his inability to read. No definitive study has been done of the entire prison population across Australia, but in the few studies that have been done, up to 40 per cent of inmates have been shown to have a learning or language disability.
Dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia form a spectrum of learning disabilities, which means there are degrees of impact on a person with dyslexia, and they might also have issues with numbers and writing. In the modern workplace, dyslexia remains a very serious disability. When I think of the quantity of reading I do for work in this role and in my previous jobs, I can't imagine how hard it is for a dyslexic to read multiple emails, digest them and respond appropriately, particularly in succession. 'So they'll just have to get a job where they use their hands,' is the response. Well, it's not always that simple. Even in positions where the work is physical, there are times when reading is necessary for training or safety purposes. And we all know that manual jobs are becoming harder to come by.
There's also the issue of harnessing the full intelligence, the full suite of gifts of every individual—people like Trevor Watts, the state member for Toowoomba North in Queensland's parliament. He ran a number of quite successful pubs in his city before he became an MP. I hope he wouldn't be embarrassed if I said before this chamber that he is a pretty darn smart bloke. He doesn't talk much about his dyslexia, so not very many of his parliamentary colleagues know—until now!—that when he's given a question in question time it can be really challenging to read it. When he speaks, it's usually off the cuff, which means he's actually an outstanding speaker with a really good memory. Professor Keith Houghton, an emeritus professor of the Australian National University and a current professor at the Swinburne Business School, is dyslexic. Professor Houghton has written five textbooks on business over the course of his career, yet he has read only one book in his entire adult life. He admits that he hasn't read his own PhD thesis. Yet Professor Houghton recalls a teacher at his primary school calling him 'just a dumb-dumb'. CEO and founder of Dear Dyslexic Foundation, Shae Wissell, who is in the gallery at the moment, is a speech pathologist. She has a master's in public health and an administration in health and she's currently a doctoral candidate researching the impacts of dyslexia—this hidden disability in the workplace. She too is dyslexic.
I have such admiration for Trevor, Keith and Shae because—at least in the case of Keith and Shae—they found ways to overcome their inability to read in order to become academics. Shae's career has taken her into the Public Service in Victoria and also the Commonwealth Public Service. Often job applications, including in the Public Service, include the option of ticking a box where it says, 'Do you have a disability?' but most people with dyslexia won't tick that box. They tend to know that when they do, and they find themselves vying for a position with a person who has no disability, most times they won't get the job—and, if they do, they can often find their bosses unsympathetic. That's the product of a lack of understanding. In Shae's case, one manager was so frustrated with her bad spelling—a common trait of people who have dyslexia—that she couldn't focus on the content of the report Shae had written. Bu now, in a relatively simple adaptation, Shae has an editor, which you can think of as the equivalent of an Auslan signer for a deaf person. Shae and Professor Houghton haven't been cured of their dyslexia—indeed, there's no known way to do so at this point in time—but they have found ways to achieve despite it.
Technology is such today that we can easily make allowances for dyslexic people to work in office environments. More and more content is being produced in video and audio form which allows us to listen and comprehend in order to take in information. There are back-end programs for websites which offer text-to-voice in more than 150 languages. This license option is so impressive it could well be used to help dyslexic people understand electronic documents and web pages, including government websites. Reader pens allow people with dyslexia to read the most complex of reports and use that information accordingly, and you'll find they're now used with regularity in schools, TAFE and universities.
I'm asking all of us here in parliament to show our support for the people of Australia who muddle their letters and their numbers, who find reading hard, and in doing so wear the red ribbon that's been delivered to each of your offices. Let's encourage our schools, our doctors and our governments to understand the challenges that are faced by dyslexic people. Let's fully appreciate their gifts. With a little more effort, we can wholly unleash the potential of the one in 10 Australians who are born with dyslexia. Remember, if life gives you melons, there's a good chance you're dyslexic!
Workplace Relations
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (20:41): When we talk about wage theft and worker exploitation in Australia, it's easy to quote the horrifying statistics and forget that this exploitation has a human face. Today I want to share the story of Gabriela—or Gabby, as her friends call her. Gabby is a disability care worker on a bridging visa from Colombia working in Sydney's western suburbs. She is one of the 1.4 million workers in Australia today on a temporary visa that comes with working rights. Gabby is one of the thousands of workers in Australia who have been bullied and who have had their hours reduced for protesting her employer's failure to ensure proper care for clients.
Gabby told me that she came to Australia to practice in this industry because of her passion for helping people—a passion driven by her faith and desire to be a good Catholic and help people in need. She told me how incredibly lucky she thought Australia was to have a scheme like the NDIS that cares for people with disabilities when so few countries can. However, her gutless employer, Community Connections Australia, punished her for doing the right thing. This is a company that should be working to do the right thing, not turning on their staff who blow the whistle when the employer fails to provide quality care to people with a disability.
I visited Gabby this month and she told me: 'One night I was doing a shift at a disability group home, where I witnessed a client physically abusing another. During the incident, I was also assaulted by the client. I filled out a report and raised concerns about how the company was handling the living arrangements.' How did the company respond? They cut her hours from 34 hours to just 1½ hours per week. When she reminded management that she was entitled to a minimum of four hours, they handed her a measly five hours in total. Her hours were not because of lack of demand; they were simply handed to another employee. She was bullied, overhearing a manager referring to her as 'a bitch'; she was pressured to sign documents claiming she had completed training that she had never been given; and she was denied a union representative in meetings with management to discuss the incident. She was told that they would not provide a reference so that she could apply for other work, effectively trapping her. Her contract carried clauses that prevented her or her fellow employees from going to the media if they saw instances of abuse or neglect.
This is further evidence that our system is broken. Workers who see situations of abuse or incidents of wage theft are being denied the right to blow the whistle. She knew what was happening was unfair, but like many workers on temporary work visas she was scared to complain further for fear she might be deported. Thankfully, she received support from her union.
The Unions NSW Visa Assist program is advising and supporting workers like Gabby. Mark Morey, Thomas Costa and their team at Unions NSW must be commended on this program. Visa Assist is a partnership between Unions NSW and the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre. The partnership allows workers to access expert advice and visa support so they don't fear asserting their rights under the law. The state government in Victoria has also recognised the scale of this problem of exploited migrant workers. They've established the Victorian Migrant Workers' Centre to support workers subjected to wage theft and poor working conditions.
So, what is the problem with the federal government making similar commitments? This government has presided over an unprecedented blowout in the number of people in Australia on temporary visas who are vulnerable to exploitation. In a University of New South Wales and UTS survey of working visa holders, they found that nearly a third of those visa holders received $12 or less in hourly pay—well below the minimum wage. According to Department of Home Affairs's own figures, the number of people on bridging visas in Australia has reached the record-high level of 230,000 in March this year.
The Morrison government has failed to address the exploitation of temporary workers and the Morrison government has failed to address the depressing effect that exploitive temporary worker pay and conditions are having on the wages of all Australian workers. Now state governments and unions are stepping up to assist the workers to assert their basic rights. I would say to the federal government: 'You should look at the model partnership between Unions NSW and the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre.' The federal government has created many of these problems, so the federal government should do their bit and commit much needed resources to collaborations like this to defend migrant workers from the employers who have made exploitation a business model. After all, it is civil society organisations that I'm talking about—community groups, churches, volunteer associations and, of course, trade unions—that have a mandate to take care of people who would otherwise be voiceless.
Finally, I want to make the point that this coalition government, now in its third term, has three new trade deals that they want to enact by getting enabling legislation through this parliament. These deals include thousands more temporary visas on top of the 1.4 million people on temporary work visas who are already here. It includes visas covering skilled jobs like electricians, nurses and chefs. It also covers seasonal workers like fruit pickers, whom we know are among the most exploited in our country. And we're especially concerned about adding to a pool of workers that is already highly vulnerable to exploitation and wage theft. Industry leaders and farmers are also concerned about this and have been calling on the government to desist from expanding this worker program until the persistent issue of underpayment and exploitation are addressed. Under this government, we've been waiting a long time for these issues to receive more attention.
It's been six months since the release of the report of the government's Migrant Workers' Taskforce, aptly chaired by Professor Allan Fels and Professor David Cousins. It's a report that correctly describes in horrific detail the state of abuse of migrant workers. But this government has made it clear that it's not a priority. However, the commonsense recommendations in this report go to these points: introducing legislation to clarify that a migrant worker is entitled at all times to workplace protections; making it illegal to advertise jobs with pay rates that would breach the Fair Work Act; making it an offence for employers who knowingly and unduly coerce a temporary migrant worker to breach the conditions of their visa; and, further, recommendations preventing employers who repeatedly exploit migrant workers from employing them in the future for specific periods. Their inaction speaks volumes of the government's hypocrisy—the hypocrisy of claiming to be strong on borders but failing to stop the industrial exploitation and breaching of visas. We owe it to workers like Gabby and to all Australia's working women and men to continue to hold the government to account and to speak out.
Middle East
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:49): I'd like to speak tonight about Australia's strategic engagement in the Middle East. Last week, Prime Minister Morrison was one of the few world leaders to defend US President Trump over the unilateral and contentious withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria. Whilst others were accusing the President of leaving the United States' Kurdish allies exposed to an imminent attack from Turkish forces, Mr Morrison preferred to underline the consistency of President Trump's oft-stated desire to pull US troops out of Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Prime Minister said:
I think it would be wrong to not draw an element of consistency between those statements almost a year ago and the action the United States has been taking, including most recently.
In subsequent statements, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, have rightly condemned Turkey's military offensive into northern Syria but have studiously avoided any criticism of President Trump's green-lighting of that assault. Asked if the US President had abandoned the Kurds, Senator Payne simply said, 'Countries are able to make decisions in their own national interest.' We are now seeing the consequences of President Trump's decision regarding Syria and the Kurds. As a very important aside, today I learned that there are 40 Australian children in the Al-Hawl camp in Syria—a Kurdish controlled camp. They are obviously in a most dangerous situation. They have an option to be moved to safe ground without endangering Australian officials, but it isn't being exercised. If the worst happens to these Aussie kids—and it is a possibility that I fear—then obviously some serious questions will follow.
In question time yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs revealed that, over the weekend, she and the Prime Minister both spoke with the US Secretary of State about developments in Syria. However, when asked about what representations were made to the United States about the impact of its decision to withdraw its forces from Syria, the Minister for Foreign Affairs blandly observed that she won't go into the contents of private conversations. One can well understand the government's reluctance to say anything critical of President Trump. After all, just one word can potentially bring down a barrage of presidential tweets and unpredictable decisions potentially harmful to our national interests. However, it's also abundantly clear that, for all the Prime Minister's efforts to build a personal relationship with the US President, Mr Morrison and Senator Payne simply weren't in the loop. The Australian government appears to have first learned of the latest developments in US policy from twitter and media reports.
The truth is that US policy towards the Middle East is in an extraordinarily volatile state. US policy and actions are erratic, confused and driven by short-term political considerations. US allies such as Australia cannot rely on the normal processes of consultation to influence policy made in President Trump's White House. That is the present reality. There is no surprise in this, but it doesn't augur well for the management of Australia's defence deployments in the Middle East.
The Australian Defence Force has, at present, more than 1,300 personnel deployed in the Middle East region. We have major commitments including Operation Okra, with some 450 personnel deployed in Iraq; Operation Highroad, with 350 personnel deployed in Afghanistan; Operation Accordion, with 500 personnel deployed with the ADF's Middle East logistic base; and Operation Manitou and the deployment of a Royal Australian Navy frigate to support maritime security operations in the region. The Defence budget papers for 2019-20 show that the net additional cost of these operations to 2022-23 amounts to nearly $4 billion.
In August the government announced an additional commitment of naval and air capability to support a US commanded effort to police the Strait of Hormuz. Given the current state of flux in American policy and the erratic character in decision-making in Washington, there is an urgent need for Australia to look closely at current Middle East deployments and ask them very searching questions about the risks involved and our long-term strategic interests. Arguably the greatest danger lies in the Persian Gulf, with the stand-off between the United States and Iran, rather than the situation in Syria. Prime Minister Morrison has appeared rather sanguine about this, observing last week that President Trump had shown restraint on the subject of Iran in their talks in the White House last month. The Prime Minister said:
… the President made it very clear that his natural instinct actually is restraint. This is his natural disposition that's something that I think is a bit misunderstood.
That may be so, but who would really rely on the consistency of the President's actions or, indeed, his good judgement? In June, we saw President Trump go to the brink of a military strike against Iran, apparently with planes ordered into the air, only to pull back at the very last minute. The overall situation remains fraught with tension. We've seen oil tankers seized, a US Navy drone shot down, and a missile and drone strike on a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia. Support for freedom of navigation is important, especially in strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, but there's a real danger that Australia's new naval and air commitments may amount to a blank cheque for Australian entanglement in a war with Iran.
Beyond that issue, we also need to look very carefully at Australia's commitments in Afghanistan. As the Trump administration moves to draw down on American forces, we need to ask ourselves a couple of questions: (1) whether Australia's job is done; and (2) whether continued deployments in those countries are the optimum use of our finite defence capabilities. The answer to the first question is yes. International terrorists have been greatly diminished, and such commitments cannot be open-ended. The answer to the second question is no, as our strategic circumstances are changing, and changing rapidly. We are unquestionably entering a new era of competition between major powers focused on East Asia and the Pacific. In these circumstances, Australia may face significant strategic challenges closer to home. The development of maritime and air capabilities for the defence of Australia and the projection of military power in Australia's immediate region are already key priorities. A rapid wind-down of Australia's Iraq and Afghanistan deployments and the associated support operations would allow the reallocation of financial and other resources to help build up naval and air capabilities much more relevant to the defence of Australia and our immediate strategic interests in the Pacific and East Asia regions.
In circumstances in which US policymaking is highly uncertain and difficult to influence, we should also carefully circumscribe any continuing Australian naval deployment to avoid Australia being drawn into an unwanted war with Iran. I might point out that that's not a criticism of our naval officers; they are most professional. I've always been impressed by the way that principal warfare officers, captains of our warships and those the US Navy who are sailing around in well-armed vessels in a very professional capacity don't use the weapons that they have available to them. At all costs, they avoid doing that, and they are highly professional, but you can have a strategic direction from above that can unravel that professionalism.
As the foreign minister has said of the United States, countries are able to make decisions in their own national interest. Well, that applies to Australia as well. We need to focus firmly on Australia's primary strategic interests, the defence of Australia and supporting peace and security in our immediate region. That's where our national interest now lies.
Martin, Mrs Gloria Harriett Evlyn
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (20:59): Tonight I rise to pay tribute to a lady well known to many in the Liberal Party in New South Wales: Gloria Martin, who passed away on 7 September at the age of 92 years. I was fortunate to see Gloria the day before she passed. I took her hand and said, 'Gloria, its Connie.' A movement of her hand told me she had recognised me. I was glad to have been able to say goodbye to a woman who had been one of my most loyal supporters.
I first met Gloria in the early 1990s when I joined the Liberal Party. As former Prime Minister John Howard said at her funeral, 'There'll never be another Gloria.' In delivering the eulogy to Gloria entitled 'My party, my country' Janice Photios started with these words:
Gloria Martin, a woman of strong beliefs, convictions and moral fortitude, was characteristically defined by her passionate love and fierce loyalty to her Liberal Party and her country Australia.
A woman of inner strength and dignity, Gloria had an energy and a zest for life which left others half her age in her wake, and her love of country was infectious and her loyalty to others unsurpassed.
Janice aptly described Gloria as 'a pint-size pocket rocket', and that she was. All of four foot, nine inches, Gloria didn't pull any punches when she was having a go at someone. As Janice said:
She stood by her principles no matter what others thought. She wore her heart on her sleeve and called a spade a spade.
Gloria Harriett Evlyn Martin was born in Cairns, Queensland as the only daughter of Evlyn Erly Martin and George Maurice Martin on 19 March 1927. She was the youngest of three children, having two older brothers. Later, the family moved to Townsville where Gloria spent her formative years. When Gloria was just 10, her mother died. Her brother Joffre and his wife took Gloria in, sadly, after her father had abandoned her.
At 18 years of age Gloria caught a bus to Sydney, boarded in Parramatta and found herself a job. She gained employment at Le Toumeau Westinghouse in Rydalmere, an American manufacturer of heavy-duty earthmoving equipment, where she spent the bulk of her professional career as a bookkeeper and secretary to the accountant. She was a hard worker and became a very well respected employee.
In 1950, she married Sidney Martin—she didn't have to change all the paperwork—whom she had met at a dance at the Masonic Centre in Eastwood. He was handsome and dashing and it was reputedly love at first sight. They married in St Alban's Anglican Church, Epping, the same church where Gloria's funeral was held on 27 September. They were married for 47 years, until Sid passed away in 1997. After her retirement from Westinghouse, Gloria became a self-employed businesswoman. With her flair for decorating and gift-wrapping, she started a card and gift shop in the West Ryde, which she owned and operated for 17 years.
In 1987 Gloria joined the Liberal Party after she met Stella Wilson, a matriarch of the party in the area. Gloria eventually became secretary of the Eastwood south branch in 2001. She served as secretary for the Bennelong conference for 12 years. For over a decade, she worked as a volunteer in the office of John Howard, doing whatever tasks needed to be done. Indeed, Mr Howard said at the funeral:
I didn't have a more loyal, energetic, conscientious Liberal Party supporter in my electorate branch as in Gloria Martin.
She was a keen fundraiser. Her events were always well attended. She had a great ability to extract raffle prizes from businesses. It was difficult to say no to Gloria. All those prizes and gifts were beautifully wrapped and presented to the winners.
Gloria was an avid letter writer. Notwithstanding she had little formal education, she had a sharp mind and a great memory. She argued her point forcefully. She was very well informed. Her letters were handwritten compositions of beautiful copperplate handwriting. She also made handwritten copies for her records. The last letter I got from Gloria was dated 20 March 2019. I had sent Gloria flowers on her birthday. Whilst the letter was to thank me, it was a good opportunity to put forward her thoughts on issues she was concerned about. She wrote:
I must congratulate your staff, they passed my message on for you to ring me and you did which I appreciated, very rare these days, I can assure you, the inefficiency in all the offices these days is most annoying, phone calls are not returned, they cannot answer a letter, if lucky, it is from a Staffer and full of nonsense and makes no sense. I wrote to one state Politician in January, 2018 rang his office for, five (5) months without success.
As you know, I only want to help the Liberal people for the best interest of the State and Federal and my country, being a proud Australian, but at times, it is not easy, believe me.
Gloria was a tireless worker. Despite her age and some physical constraints, she was determined to carry on as long as she could. As Janice told us at the funeral:
The country needed her.
Someone had to keep these politicians, on both sides, on their toes.
To the very end, she loved, respected, worked tirelessly for and fought for the Liberal Party and for Australia.
Former Prime Minister Howard summarised Gloria when he said:
There'll never be somebody who could quite capture that simple, direct, often beguiling but never bewildered personality, who understood what she believed in, believed what was right for Australia, and was absolutely determined to ensure that anybody she could influence never strayed from the straight and narrow path.
Once you were seen as having a little bit of influence in the community, or in a Liberal Party Branch or in any organisation that you were associated with, Gloria Martin made absolutely certain that you remained in her gunsights, and pity help you if you got out of line or left the reservation.
You would get initially a letter, then you'd get a few phone calls, and then if that failed you'd get sort of a shout during a phone call to the Alan Jones or Ray Hadley Show.
That was the sort of three pronged attack from which Gloria was absolutely famous.
On another occasion, the thank you note to me was the opportunity to include the following PS:
Connie, get rid of 18C, no same sex marriage and tell Nick Xenophon to pull his head in.
Classic Gloria!
She was an avid listener of 2GB, a keen contributor and a regular talkback caller. The radio was always on in case she needed to call in to counter some political point that was being made. She was direct and to the point. She spoke articulately and with conviction. It was a testimony to her standing in the party that the pallbearers included New South Wales Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections and member for Lane Cove, the Hon. Anthony Roberts, and member for Wollondilly, Nathaniel Smith.
Of course, at the funeral we sang God Save the Queen. A staunch monarchist, she was a woman of conservative views and tradition. She was also a woman of faith. As Janice mentioned in the eulogy, Gloria asked her visitors to Ryde Hospital to pray for her.
Gloria had three loves in her life: her husband, Sid, her country and the Liberal Party. Her commitment to all three was the guiding force of her life. I know I speak for many people in the Liberal Party, most especially those in the Ryde and Bennelong area, in paying respect to Gloria for her contribution to her country and her party.
In closing, I acknowledge the friendship and support given to Gloria by Mike Beinke and Robert Duic, the co-executors of her estate, and their respective families. Her funeral was attended by former Prime Minister John Howard and Mrs Janette Howard, by members of state and federal parliaments, by party officials and by many in the Liberal family. This was a testimony to the respect in which Gloria was held by so many. We remembered her as the feisty and very direct pocket rocket who always spoke her mind. She will be well remembered by many in the Liberal Party. Vale Gloria Harriett Evlyn Martin.
Tasmanian Government