The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lines) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 3.30 pm.
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 5 pm.
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Thursday, 17 October 2019—
private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), from 10 am.
public meeting, from 10.10 am.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019
In Committee
Bills—by leave—taken together and as a whole.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:32): I move Greens amendment (1) to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019, on sheet 8741:
(1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 11), omit the table item.
We also oppose schedule 17 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 in the following terms:
Schedule 17, page 156 (lines 1 to 20), to be opposed.
I did go into this in a bit of detail yesterday. Part of this legislation supposedly ensures the valid designation of certain areas as 'frontier areas' for the purposes of the Designated Frontier Area, DFA, tax incentive. A mistake was apparently discovered, in that a number of areas that should have been eligible were not. This bill provides for an uplift rate and an incentive. As I said yesterday, the Greens oppose this. We oppose schedule 17, page 156, lines 1 to 20, of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019. I made it very clear yesterday that we don't believe we should be giving more tax incentives to big oil and gas companies. Minister, can you talk us through the process of how these specific areas were discovered? Did the companies or the tenement holders themselves approach NOPSEMA or any other government department to ask that these areas be considered or was it discovered in some kind of audit process?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:34): Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. In respect of your specific question, I don't have any information at hand, I'm sorry, about exactly how the issue was discovered or how it was brought to the government's attention. I'd have to take that on notice. Obviously I'm happy to go through the detail of the reasons for these proposed amendments.
I might just take this opportunity to indicate that the government will not be supporting the Greens amendment. Primarily we'll not be supporting this amendment because the provision that the Greens would like to oppose is all about providing consistency in our taxation law and honouring a commitment the Australian government made to oil and gas producers doing certain exploration activities around 10 to 15 years ago. Just to explain it to the chamber, the designated frontier area tax incentive is the issue at question here. It was a measure that was in place from 2004 to 2009. It was designed to attract and provide an incentive for investors to do exploration in remote offshore areas, or frontier areas—areas that might otherwise find it difficult to attract interest and investment given their high-risk nature.
As part of the tax incentive, the resources minister had the power, under subsection 36B(1) of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987, to designate, in writing, offshore petroleum acreage release areas, in the years 2005 to 2008, as designated frontier areas. The requirement to designate these areas in writing was not met for the 2005 acreage release. The then minister for resources had provided in-principle agreement to the designation of areas for the 2005 acreage release prior to commencement of the relevant provisions of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987. However, a subsequent process to formally designate the areas in writing was not undertaken once the provisions had commenced, although the areas were publicly, clearly and consistently promoted as such. Consequently, though four exploration permits were awarded over areas promoted in 2005 as designated frontier areas, they were not technically designated as frontier areas.
To remove any doubt regarding the validity of claims under the tax incentive scheme, the amendments made by this bill confirm the legal designation of those areas as designated frontier areas. There will be no detriment to or negative effect on any other parties as a result of the amendments and there are no new obligations that will be applied retrospectively. This program was fully costed and budgeted for during its original inception in 2004. These amendments relate directly to the Australian government's commitment to providing a robust and stable investment environment. The companies that bid on this acreage did so taking into account a range of relevant considerations in making their investment decisions, and the DFA—the designated frontier area tax incentive—was one of those considerations. If we failed to provide the taxation law certainty extended by these amendments, it would unfairly and unjustly undermine the original investment decisions. Genuine and consistent application of taxation law is a principle as equally applicable to offshore petroleum companies as it is to anyone else.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:38): You can't tell me whether the companies themselves had lobbied to have these areas changed, for tax purposes, to designated frontier areas as defined in 2005. Can you tell me what the four areas that were not formally designated as frontier areas are? What are those tenements, where are those areas, and what companies are we talking about here?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:38): I do have that information and I'm happy to share it with the chamber. There were four areas: area S05-2, offshore of South Australia; W05-5, offshore of Western Australia; W05-23, offshore of WA; and W05-24, also offshore of WA. Those areas have a technical specification when they're released as tenements. Unless you really want that information I'll leave that off, just for time reasons, but I'm happy to provide it to you if you really need it. The companies involved across those four areas are Exxoil; Gascorp; Moby Oil and Gas; National Energy; Woodside; Mitsui; PTTEP, which is Thai; Toyota Tsusho Gas; Plectrum Petroleum; Arcadia Petroleum; Innovation Resources; Cathay Petroleum; and the last one actually is the same consortium, so those same companies—they are all involved. As I said, I've taken it on notice and we can come back to you if need be after this debate about the process and how the discovery occurred.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:40): You mentioned that this had been fully costed, presumably in the budget. Can you tell the Senate what the quantum of deferred tax or tax credits will be once this reassessment passes the Senate today.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:40): To try and clarify for the purposes of the Senate, there is no additional cost associated with the bill that we are putting forward in regard to these issues with the frontier area tax incentive, because these tax deductions and credits, or incentives, have already been factored in. All we are doing through this bill is confirming the status quo. There are no additional deductions or incentives that are provided from the action we're taking today. Those extra deductions were already taken into account, or provided for, 10 to 15 years ago. I apologise, I don't have in front of me the budget amounts of 10 or 15 years ago for the extent of those costs in the budgets in those years, but, as I said and can confirm, there is no additional expense or cost to the budget from this bill.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:41): I take it then that those companies that you read out—unfortunately, I wasn't fast enough to write them all down, but I'm sure I can go back and have a look in Hansard—have been claiming the uplifted petroleum resource rent tax deductions at the 150 per cent rate already. So to all intents and purposes they have been claiming these as designated frontier areas, but this is to avoid potential tax office findings against them. Is that why the Senate is doing this today? I don't quite understand. If it's already been factored in and they've already claimed these deductions, this is just a formality. Is that correct?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:42): I must say I can't go into individual taxation issues here. I don't have that information. Obviously, it's a matter for the Australian Taxation Office, but my general understanding is that the ATO don't discuss individual taxation matters. We're talking about a framework. I think the government have clearly outlined in the contributions on this bill, in the EM and in the second reading speech that we take seriously the importance of having a consistent framework in place for these matters. As I said, I have taken on notice the question about the discovery process, but there is no information before me that says there is any issue currently with any of these deductions in the past being challenged directly, but we obviously have discovered that there was a mistake made in 2005. In most areas of life, when you find you have made a mistake you're best to correct it as soon as you can, and that's what we're doing today.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:43): I appreciate that, Minister, but, obviously, how and why that mistake was discovered is pretty critical to the amendment we're dealing with today. In relation to the permit S05-2 that you mentioned was the first of the four permits—the other three were Western Australian permits—are you able to tell us today whether that tenement is still actively being looked at for exploration into the future? Is it offshore or onshore?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:44): They're all offshore areas that I read out. I did mention that there are particular tenement titles that are issued associated with the area. There's an area designation. When a title is issued the title itself gets a specific code, if you like. For your records, that particular one, S05-2, in that area was awarded as EPP36 at the time. The early advice I have here is that we do not believe that any of these titles, as separate from the areas, are still active, but I'll take that on notice.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:44): They're all the questions I had for the minister. I just wanted to thank him for giving our climate emergency balloon a plug in this chamber yesterday. We managed to raise some funds from people who want to let parliament, and all the decision-makers in this place, know that we are in a climate emergency. This was a significant topic of debate in the other place yesterday. We're very pleased that Labor joined the Greens in our call to declare a climate emergency in this chamber and in the lower house of the federal parliament. Unfortunately, we weren't able to fly the balloon over parliament yesterday, as we had originally hoped to do, because of advice provided by the President. But we're quite happy to have it highlighted in this chamber. I hope Australians appreciate that we are in a climate emergency, and that at least some of us are trying to get decisions made in this place to act on the rising emissions that are causing global warming and putting our future generations in jeopardy.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:46): Chair, I have some additional information for the question I took on notice about the discovery process. I'm informed that this error, this mistake, was discovered by the department in the course of its investigation of normal standard titles administration.
On some of the other questions that were asked during this debate: the entire designated frontier area program, for those five years I mentioned, was costed at $250 million. We do not have the individual amounts or deductions that were provided to individual companies. The Australian Taxation Office has confirmed for us that all of the affected companies that I mentioned have already claimed their deductions and, I'm informed, there are no additional deductions in the future that could be claimed by these title areas. I just confirm again that the reason we're doing this is to provide legal certainty and consistency, and to protect the integrity of our system.
I won't hold Senator Sterle up for too long but, just briefly, I want to thank the Australian Greens for highlighting the benefits and use of fossil fuels yesterday with their gas-fired hot air balloon. It's amazing what fossil fuels can and do achieve—flight being one of the things we wouldn't be able to do without the use of fossil fuels. The Australian Greens conducted their own scientific experiment on the lawns of Parliament House to demonstrate to us all, once again—I'm sure my good colleagues from Western Australia would agree with me—how good are the oil and gas sectors and how much they can do. You also might be interested to know, Senator Whish-Wilson, that the hot air balloon itself could not even have been made without fossil fuels. Almost all modern hot air balloons are made from either nylon or dacron, both of which are polymers that are made thanks to the wonderful products from our fossil fuel industries. So thank you very much Australian Greens. We work well together—you've also highlighted the position of the Labor Party for us all: that they support you in this climate emergency, support you in shutting down the oil, gas, coal and who knows how many other industries in this country. But we'll keep standing up for the jobs and supporting these great industries because we do like to fly, we do like the modern technologies we all have, thanks to these industries. And we particularly defend and fight for the jobs that these industries provide to so many Australians.
The CHAIR: I just remind people that, whilst we've had a slight digression, we do need to be relevant to the amendments before us, Senator Whish-Wilson.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:48): Absolutely, Chair. I can't help not having the last say on this, although it may not be the last say on this—
The CHAIR: I think it might be the last say because I have directed people to be relevant to the amendment.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I promise it will be, Chair. We made those speeches yesterday and we've put up this amendment today because we don't believe we should have a tax system in this place that incentivises more oil and gas exploration. We've been very clear and very honest about that. This is the time in history to be transitioning away from dirty fossil fuels and supporting the profits of multinationals, who pay very little tax and give very little back to the Australian people. In this time of climate emergency we should be transitioning.
On that point, while I acknowledge, and I always have acknowledged, that I do use petrol and petroleum products—although I am getting a new hybrid car—just because it is so doesn't mean it needs to be so in the future. We now have the technology and the know-how to transition to new technologies. We could use hydrogen generated from clean energy, for example. We could create whole new products, whole new markets and whole new industries through this transition. What that's going to require is leadership. That's all I ask for. Acknowledge we're in a climate emergency. We must change. That won't happen unless governments play a really strong role in that transition. We need to accept that there are huge opportunities in this transition. It shouldn't be seen as a cost and a risk if it's properly managed. Whether it's hot air balloons and what they're made of and driven by, whether it's your car or whether it's the clothes you wear on your body, we have the technology and the smarts to engineer our way out of this crisis if we act soon—and we must act urgently.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (09:51): Labor opposes the Greens amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019. Firstly, the bill should commence when the bill has passed. We see absolutely no advantage in delaying it any further. Secondly, the 'frontier areas' inclusion in the bill fixes past omissions, as I said yesterday in my contribution on the second reading, and does not affect the revenue.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 17 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
The CHAIR: That means that amendment (1) drops away.
Bills agreed to.
Bills reported without amendments or requests; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (09:52): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (09:53): The Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 contains seven separate measures dealing with various Treasury laws and tax activities. Schedule 1 prevents certain tax deductions from arising when a newly privatised entity repays a concessional loan. Schedule 2 amends the tax law to prevent small-business CGT concessions from being available for assignments of the income of a partner and other rights or interests in the income or capital of a partnership that are not a membership interest in the partnership. Schedule 3 limits deductions for losses or outgoings incurred that relate to holding vacant land under certain circumstances. This would essentially end negative gearing in relation to vacant land.
Labor supports action to improve the integrity of our tax and superannuation system. We support the intentions of this bill. Over the course of the Senate inquiry into this bill, however, it became clear the government has mishandled the drafting of this legislation. The government has, on occasion, used its numbers on legislation committees to prevent a committee from taking the time needed to properly consider a bill, either by frustrating proposals to hold public hearings or by forcing compressed timetables that make it difficult for stakeholders to engage. The inquiry into this bill shows why that is very poor practice. The inquiry has revealed a number of problems in the drafting of the bill. Labor will be moving or supporting amendments that remedy these. The inquiry process played an important role in surfacing those issues.
I want to go to schedule 3 and vacant land. The committee inquiry shone a light on just how poorly this bill was drafted. Where schedule 3 of the bill intends to address the application of tax concessions on property tax—that is, vacant land—the drafting leaves much to the imagination. The definition of vacant land is ambiguous and could leave the door open to problematic consequences. For instance, the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand highlighted that newly-constructed apartments that were impacted by structural defects could be classed as vacant land. In their submission to the inquiry they state:
In light of the recent problems in Sydney with newly constructed apartments impacted by structural defects (e.g. Opal Towers and Mascot Towers), it has been brought to our attention that these buildings could be inadvertently caught by these provisions as they are no longer lawfully able to be occupied due to the structural defects.
Coalition senators agreed with Labor in recommending that the bill be fixed to deal with this botched definition of vacant land in the schedule 3.
There are concerns with schedule 5 of the bill. Submissions to the Senate inquiry raised concerns around the adequacy of resourcing in regard to the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman. For the IGTO to become an effective organisation, they require the appropriate powers and resources. Labor supports recommendation 2 of the committee report, which could see the ATO engage with the IGTO to address concerns around potential privacy implications, notification time frames, disclosure time frames and the potential risk to businesses from disclosure errors made by credit reporting bureaus or the ATO. Labor agrees with the committee on this matter but also wants to see the bill go further to fix the drafting problems. Firstly, we want to see an extension to the notice period, currently at 21 days. The ATO's ordinary service expectation of 15 business days or 21 calendar days would not allow a sufficient period for affected taxpayers to dodge—not dodge, sorry; how did that slip out!—to lodge a complaint to the IGTO within the 21 day notice period. The government has rushed the drafting of this bill and missed glaring gaps in the practical application of the bill. Labor will be moving amendments recommended by the Inspector-General of Taxation to improve the ability of small business to deal with the ATO. Yoo-hoo!
Schedule 7 of this bill relates to salary sacrifice super contributions. Schedule 7 of this bill would prevent employers from underpaying superannuation when an employee chooses of their own volition to salary sacrifice into superannuation. This is a loophole that is well past due being closed. Compulsory superannuation is a central pillar to our retirement system. It affords every working Australian the ability to save for their retirement. Another pillar of our retirement system is the ability for workers to build their superannuation balance by making additional contributions to their super account outside of the mandated superannuation guarantee. Employers who seek to use workers' additional contributions to top up their own obligations are in effect taking money from their workers, and this bill will finally close the loophole that makes it possible for them to do so.
Industry Super Australia gave evidence at the Senate inquiry on the impact that closing this loophole will have on the retirement savings of Australians. They suggest that by fixing salary sacrificing arrangements about 370,000 workers will be paid more than $1.5 billion in entitlements that they are owed. This is based on 2016-17 figures alone. That warms the cockles of my heart, I can tell you! Given the scale of this problem, it is surprising that the government hasn't acted sooner, but that is what happens when you have a government that is asleep at the wheel.
This loophole amounts to around 16.6 per cent of the unpaid super problem. This is an important measure to ensure that wage theft and superannuation theft is stamped out. But more needs to be done. The problem of unpaid super has increased by 25 per cent in the last three years. My God, that's alarming! Action needs to be taken now to end the ingrained practice of wage theft. Labor will be supporting amendments that achieve this outcome. Workers impacted by wage theft are already falling behind. By missing out on entitled contributions, they are also missing the compound interest that would have been applied to those lost contributions. When it comes to superannuation, every additional year has a noticeable impact at retirement. Superannuation theft is costing Australians nearly $6 billion a year, and the government cannot delay getting entitled super back to workers.
Labor wants to ensure that there is integrity in the tax system and will ensure tax integrity bills brought before this parliament are the best bills they can possibly be. This means engaging with the substance of legislation, as we have done through the committee inquiry into this bill. The matters addressed in this bill are important. That is why Labor is happy to support it. Let's be very clear: it falls short of being part of a real plan for our tax and transfer system, let alone a plan for our economy.
We are still waiting to hear from the government what their plan is to grow the Australian economy. Didn't we just have something leak out about how they had some plan? That's right; it was a joke! As I said, we're still waiting to hear what they're going to do. Maybe you might be able to help us, Senator Brockman. We want to diversify our industry to secure Australian jobs and living standards. What's your plan? The reality is the coalition is in their third term of government with absolutely no plan. Australia cannot afford to continue coasting. Oh my, we need a Prime Minister who has more than a sales pitch; we need a government with a plan.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:02): Centre Alliance supports the intent of the bill and proposes a number of improvements to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. Importantly, we are pleased to see the government has addressed recommendation No. 1 made during the recent Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. The committee recommended that Treasury and the ATO address the unintended consequences for property owners where their property is unusable for reasons outside their control. The government amendment will provide small relief for those owners of apartments in the Opal and Mascot buildings as they will be able to make tax offsets on their mortgage payments and expenses through negative gearing while they patiently wait for the state government to remedy the situation.
However, the government has failed to take on board the committee's second recommendation by failing to address the concerns raised by the Inspector-General of Taxation. During the committee inquiry, it became apparent that the bill lacked consideration of how it will operate in the real world and was deficient in reasonable checks and balances. As foreshadowed, due to the significant possible impact of schedule 5, Centre Alliance has proposed amendments that will address the Inspector-General of Taxation's concerns now rather than at some time in the future. The amendments proposed to schedule 5 reflect the intent and spirit of the recommendations of the Inspector-General of Taxation. We have a situation where the committee, during its inquiry, found that Treasury had not really consulted with the Inspector-General of Taxation during the development of this legislation.
The consultation was very limited, and that's problematic in terms of process. The government should sit up and listen to the recommendations of the committee, which basically say that the government needs to go back and talk to the IGT and address their concerns. We're not talking about some lobby group that has concerns; we're talking about the Inspector-General of Taxation, the watchdog that sits over the Taxation Office that has to deal with the problems that are created by some of the decisions of the tax office. We need to put protections in place that make sure people are not put in positions of great disadvantage. In the case of schedule 5, you can have the situation where a credit agency is notified of a tax debt that may be erroneous for some reason, and will stay on the record, albeit transitorily, and affect that business's reputation and could have severe consequences. It could immediately stop any attempts to deal with any financial issues that they may have. It could be quite harmful. The point is, Treasury simply didn't consult with the Inspector-General of Taxation.
The question was asked during the committee: what happens if this legislation passes unamended? The response was, 'Well, without resources, we're in a bit of trouble.' So the government, by not following the recommendations of the committee, or in fact by not going back to the IGT, is not looking at what the IGT—once again, the IGT is the protector of small businesses—has said about the tax office and when it does something that's not quite right. The IGT has stepped in and said, 'This is how you make this fairer,' but it has gone unrecognised by the government. So, Centre Alliance will be moving amendments and, just to make it very clear to everyone, those amendments are simply reflecting what the IGT recommended.
By creating safeguards, the amendments will impose protections for taxpayers who may be at risk of having their taxation debts disclosed to a credit-reporting bureau. They will ensure that, before the ATO authorise the disclosure of a taxpayer's taxation debts to credit-reporting bureaus, they must consult with the Inspector-General of Taxation and they must take into consideration what the IGT has to say. They must notify taxpayers' accountants or bookkeepers. Right now you have a situation where a notification might go to the taxpayer—they're not experts in tax; they normally rely on a tax agent. There were concerns expressed about disclosing the tax affairs of a client, of a business, but in actual fact the accountants for a business will understand the taxation situation of a company better than anyone. So that's a concern that is not warranted, and I would encourage the chamber to support our amendments to make that change.
The amendment also provides a clearer mechanism of how a notice is provided to the taxpayer. It increases the time the ATO must provide a taxpayer with before a decision on a notice can be made, and it requires the consultation on and consideration of any issues raised by the Inspector-General of Taxation before making a declaration to authorise the disclosure of a taxpayer's tax debt information to a credit-reporting bureau. These amendments are sensible amendments. They're amendments that were proposed by the Inspector-General of Taxation, and I would urge the Senate to support those amendments when we move them. Thank you.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (10:09): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. This bill contains a package of important measures that are designed to improve the integrity of Australia's tax system, save businesses time and money, through implementing an electronic invoicing framework, and protect workers' superannuation. My interest in this bill is specifically with the proposed changes to schedule 3 of the bill, which provides an integrity measure that will deny deductions, for some taxpayers, for expenses associated with holding vacant land. I want to specifically speak on government proposed amendments to schedule 3.
This is a classic case of the Senate doing its work and working well through the processes. As the bill first came into this chamber and we looked at it, we realised that there were potential implications for agricultural businesses and farmers owning primary production land that would have fallen to the definition of 'vacant land' in this instance. By working together, working through the committee processes, allowing stakeholders to raise their concerns and having an active Senate with senators in the chamber who have a specific regional focus, we were able to identify those unintended consequences, propose amendments that would ensure that the integrity of the bill is sustained and remove those unintended consequences that could have had significant negative impacts for farmers and primary producers throughout Australia.
Specifically, our proposed amendments to schedule 3 will make it clear that deductions may be available for entities that incur costs in holding land that becomes vacant due to a significant or unusual event—which often happens in regional Australia—such as bushfire, flood or other unforeseeable events. It also allows deductions while the land is carrying on a business of primary production or is being used by another entity to carry on a business. In essence, if a farmer holds a title of 'vacant land' with no permanent structure and, for their own business reasons, they decide to lease that to another farmer or business, as long as that person is carrying out a lawful business they can claim the deductions.
The amendments will also allow for succession planning. A lot of farmers make arrangements through their family units to allow for succession planning so that mum and dad can enter retirement with dignity. They can move off the farm and the children can take over, or the parents might stay in the residence on the farm but children might take over the management of what would be vacant land to carry out farming practices. Because that is an ongoing lawful business, that will be allowed and the parents will be allowed to claim deductions. This is a really important issue that was raised by several stakeholders both personally to me and through the other processes. It is a major concern for farmers throughout regional Australia and particularly those farmers who are looking to transition into retirement.
Agricultural land is often unique. One farm may be made up of multiple titles, and businesses will ascertain what is best for their business unit. Some of those titles might be vacant insofar as they don't have permanent structures, but they're certainly not vacant insofar as they're a business enterprise. The capacity for farmers to manage their businesses and tax purposes is fundamental to their ongoing viability. It may change from year to year, so they need the flexibility to carry on their business, manage their titles and their blocks and manage their succession planning so that they can have all the tax benefits that are enabled to them through a legitimate lease arrangement for the vacant land.
I commend the government. I have worked directly with the assistant minister Michael Sukkar's office to make sure that these amendments have been proposed. I certainly commend the government amendments to the chamber. I hope that people see the reasons for them and understand the reasons for them, because this will enable legitimate business to be ongoing while people can claim legitimate deductions. This does in no way undermine the integrity of the bill or the purpose of schedule 3, which is to prevent land banking or withholding land from reasonable development; in agricultural enterprises, such residential developments are unlikely to occur on a lot of the vacant land that's out there. As I said earlier, this is a classic case of the Senate doing its job, doing what it was designed to do: review legislation and make sure that we identify unintended consequences to ensure there is no negative impact on legitimate businesses that may otherwise have been caught up in the red tape. So I commend the government amendments to the Senate. I thank you for your time.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:15): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 now before the Senate. After all, the Senate is a house of review, and the change we have achieved together today is a clear example of the Senate delivering on its core purpose of review.
I speak to One Nation's achievements in standing up again for the people of Australia—particularly for those people from rural and regional Australia who would have been belted by the effects of this bill had we not stood up for them and changed the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the cooperation and valuable support of our crossbenchers, including Centre Alliance, who supported our stand when we raised this matter with them. Their change to schedule 5, after discussions with us, has achieved a win over big government for hardworking Australians so that we are not dobbed into credit reporting agencies by the Australian Taxation Office. Senator Patrick, I acknowledge your office's working with our office. I commend the Senate for adopting this.
The inclusion of our real checks and balances will protect the rights of individual Australians from government and from tax office interference with our basic property rights. It was unfortunate, to say the least, that this bill, in its original form, had not adequately considered the consequences of such onerous provisions to everyday Australians. We identified the obvious problems with schedule 3, which would have denied the farmers the right to claim for expenses associated with their land. Our primary producers should not be disadvantaged just because their land is not earning income every year. If it weren't for One Nation and the support we got from the crossbenchers, this would not have happened.
I remind the Senate that farmers have financial obligations and costs, such as land and weed management, that continue even when a property is vacant and not earning income. The government disallowing a claim for legitimate expenses does not recognise the long-term approach that farmers take in agriculture. As a digression, let me mention again United Nations Agenda 21, where farmers are prevented from using parts of their land that they've portioned off, yet they still have to maintain that land and still have the costs of maintaining that land. We need to not just talk about the assets the farmers have; we need to talk about the costs that government imposes arbitrarily on them as part of an international dictate.
Let's get back to this bill. It is also important to consider the potential impact to everyday Australians outside the city, outside the farming areas, such as the unit owners in capital cities, like those of Opal Tower, who may have been caught in this bill's net had we not acted. Months after hundreds of people were evacuated from the Opal Tower in Sydney's west, residents still fear that they won't be able to return home until late this year. It seems only fair that Australians such as these should be able to claim for legitimate deductions while their investment property is not habitable.
We all have a role to play in protecting the productive capacity of our agricultural land, our rural businesses, and our homes. Our primary producers, in particular, contribute so much to our lifestyle and to our unique Australian culture. Just like this bill, the government has talked about recent dam refurbishment projects as though they were solving all of our problems. The truth is they are not. The people of Australia would prefer to see that the government stop tinkering around the edges and that they get on and invested in new water storage capacity. This will go a lot further towards ensuring water security for our farms and farmers. The facts are that the government has announced two dam refurbishments, not new dams, and this is just a drop in the ocean compared to what we really need to drought-proof rural Australia. Government sees the need to distort the message, to look good, whereas what we are about is doing good.
On 17 September 2019 Minister Littleproud stated that water storage in Queensland had dropped from 2.75 to 1.75 megalitres per person and said that there has been no water storage planning or thinking. What the hell is going on in this country? We consider the problems we have encountered with this amendment bill on tax, and I ask the question on behalf of our farmers and regional communities: where are your visionary water storage projects, what funds have been allocated to each and what stage are they at today?
The same can be said of our tax laws as a whole. It is time for real tax reform. Everyday Australians do not want more tax amendments and a pile of complex tax laws. They deserve a better, simpler system. It is time for the government to stop just trying to look good and to focus on doing good. One Nation would not wish such onerous conditions as were contemplated in this original bill on anyone and we would not want people to be disadvantaged further through the unintended consequences of this bill as it originally was. I acknowledge the work of the skilled and professional team in my office, who are the ones who identified the risks in the proposed amendment bill and who were able to clearly see the unintended consequences for hardworking everyday Australians.
In conclusion, we in One Nation will continue to deliver on the core purpose of the Senate as a house of review. This amendment bill is a clear example of the Senate achieving that core purpose. We and the other crossbenchers are doing our best to review legislation and to work with the government to protect the lifestyle, jobs, property rights and assets of hardworking everyday Australians.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:22): Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. I would also specifically like to acknowledge the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on this bill. Senators Sterle, Patrick, Davey and Roberts are absolutely correct: the Senate is a house of review. The committee did the job that it was tasked with, and the government has responded appropriately. The bill, as amended, will address the recommendations made by the committee and the opposition's additional comments from that committee.
This bill contains a number of measures designed to improve the integrity of Australia's tax and superannuation systems and save businesses time and money through implementing an electronic invoicing framework. Schedule 1 to the bill improves the integrity of the tax treatment of concessional loans made to a tax-exempt entity that is privatised, by removing inappropriate tax deductions which arise on the repayment of loan principal for certain privatised entities. Schedule 2 to the bill will ensure that partners and partnerships cannot inappropriately access the small-business capital gains tax concessions when they alienate future income from the partnership. Partners will now only be eligible for the concessions when such rights make the assignee a partner in the partnership.
Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to deny deductions for some taxpayers for expenses associated with holding vacant land. The amendments that will be presented today will improve the integrity of the tax system by tightening the link between claiming deductions for holding vacant land and earning assessable income. In response, however, to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's recommendation regarding schedule 3, the government is ensuring that this measure will not apply to taxpayers affected by defective buildings and other exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. People in these situations are dealing with enough stress, and the government does not want taxpayers in these unfortunate situations to face any uncertainty regarding the tax treatment of land that has become vacant due to events outside their control.
The government's amendments will allow taxpayers affected by unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances to continue claiming deductions on vacant land. To be eligible for that exemption, taxpayers would need to have held the land when it was previously not vacant for tax purposes. The exemption will apply for three years from the date of the exceptional circumstance, with an option for taxpayers to request an extension from the Commissioner of Taxation. The government's amendments also ensure that taxpayers carrying on primary production businesses, such as farming, and taxpayers who rent vacant land to businesses are not affected by the measure. Overall, the amendments provide greater certainty and clarity to taxpayers on the scope of this measure, while also ensuring that the measure improves the integrity of the tax system through targeting those taxpayers who improperly claim deductions when the land is not genuinely held for the purpose of earning income.
Schedule 4 of this bill will extend to family trusts a specific anti-avoidance rule that applies to other closely held trusts that engage in circular trust distributions. This will better enable the ATO to pursue family trusts that engage in these arrangements.
Schedule 5 to the bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow the ATO to disclose to credit reporting bureaus the tax debt information of businesses that have owed the ATO at least $100,000 for more than 90 days and, during that period, have not effectively engaged with the ATO to manage their debt. This measure will encourage businesses to engage with the ATO and repay their debt in a timelier manner. In response to the recommendation of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee concerning schedule 5, I would note that the ATO and the Inspector-General of Taxation are working closely together to address the concerns that the inspector-general raised in her submission on schedule 5.
In response to the opposition's comments in the committee report regarding schedule 5, the government has agreed to the amendment proposed by Senator McAllister, on behalf of the opposition, amending the notice period under schedule 5 from 21 days to 28 days. The government also notes the opposition's comments with respect to tax practitioner representatives being provided notification of a proposed disclosure to a credit reporting bureau, under schedule 5, and I'm advised that the ATO will provide notifications to the individual taxpayer's preferred address for contact. In many cases where the taxpayer has elected their tax practitioner to be their preferred address, the tax practitioner will receive that notification. However, not all taxpayers with a tax practitioner will have the tax practitioner's address as their preferred address. It's important to respect each taxpayer's choice of preferred address. The government therefore will not be supporting Centre Alliance's amendments, but thanks Senator Patrick for his input into this bill.
Schedule 6 to the bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow the ATO to implement an electronic invoicing framework, known as e-invoicing, in Australia.
Schedule 7 to the bill protects hardworking Australians' superannuation by closing a legal loophole which has been used by some unscrupulous employers to short-change employees who make salary sacrifice contributions. These changes will prevent employers from using a salary sacrificed contribution to satisfy the employer's superannuation guarantee obligations and prevent employers from reducing the base on which they calculate the superannuation guarantee obligations by the amount of the salary sacrifice contributions. In response to the opposition's comments in the committee report regarding schedule 7, the government has agreed to the amendment proposed by Senator McAllister, on behalf of the opposition, to change the implementation date from 1 July 2020 to 1 January 2020.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:29): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to this bill and move government amendment (1) on sheet PM105:
(1) Schedule 3, item 3, page 12 (after line 13), at the end of section 26‑102, add:
Exception—structures affected by natural disasters or other exceptional circumstances
(6) Subsection (1) does not stop you deducting a loss or outgoing relating to holding land if:
(a) had an earlier time been the critical time (see paragraph (1)(b)), paragraph (1)(b) would not have applied to you for the land because of the existence at that earlier time of a substantial and permanent structure on the land; and
(b) after that earlier time, paragraph (1)(b):
(i) began to apply to you for the land wholly or mainly because of a circumstance affecting that structure; and
(ii) continued to do so at the critical time; and
(c) the circumstance was exceptional and beyond the reasonable control of you, and of all the entities referred to in paragraphs (2)(b), (c) and (d); and
(d) the critical time happened before:
(i) the third anniversary of the time paragraph (1)(b) began to apply to you for the land as described in subparagraph (b)(i) of this subsection; or
(ii) such later time as the Commissioner allows.
(7) If subsection (6) applies to you and you deduct the loss or outgoing, you must keep written records of:
(a) the circumstance; and
(b) the circumstance's effect on the affected structure;
until the fifth anniversary of the end of the income year in which you incurred the loss or outgoing.
Note: There is an administrative penalty if you fail to keep these records (see section 288‑25 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953).
Exception—land held by primary producers
(8) Subsection (1) does not stop you deducting a loss or outgoing relating to holding land if, at the critical time (see paragraph (1)(b)):
(a) the land is under lease, hire or licence to another entity; and
(b) you are, or an entity referred to in paragraph (2)(b), (c) or (d) is, carrying on a *primary production business; and
(c) the land does not contain *residential premises; and
(d) residential premises are not being constructed on the land.
Exception—land in use or available for use in carrying on a business
(9) Subsection (1) does not stop you deducting a loss or outgoing relating to holding land if, at the critical time (see paragraph (1)(b)):
(a) the land is under lease, hire or licence to another entity as a result of a dealing at *arm's length; and
(b) the land is in use, or available for use, in carrying on a *business; and
(c) the land does not contain *residential premises; and
(d) residential premises are not being constructed on the land.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:29): I have a question for the minister. I note that Mr Sukkar expressly said to the Daily Telegraph on 2 September 2019 that the proposed changes in this bill would not affect owners of unsafe residential towers in Sydney, but two days later the Senate committee reported recommending that the problems for residential towers suggested in this bill needed to be dealt with through amendments. I'm inquiring as to the basis on which Mr Sukkar made his public remarks.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:30): My understanding is that Mr Sukkar thought that that was the case—that the bill did cover that—but this amendment should clear that up.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:30): Can I indicate that we do support the government's amendment to schedule 3 of the bill. We thank the minister for her responsiveness to the suggestions made in the Senate committee report, and we note that the amendment will prevent farmers and owners of uninhabitable residential properties, including those affected by building defects, from being affected by the bill's changes to negative gearing.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:31): I have a question for the minister on this amendment. In relation to the point at which negative gearing ceases for primary producers' land, the amendment says in (1)(8)(d):
Subsection (1) does not stop you deducting a loss or outgoing relating to holding land if, at the critical time …
… … …
… residential premises are not being constructed on the land.
So at some point in time, when you start construction on the land, that will knock you out of negative gearing. The question I have is: is it from the point in time when you lodge a development application or is it when the slab is first raised? What is the time in relation to that particular provision?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:32): It's at the point at which the residential land is available for use.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:32): To clarify, is that for use to start construction or for use to live in the property? I'm trying to get some clarity around what that means.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:32): It's use for living.
Question agreed to.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:33): by leave—I move Centre Alliance amendments (1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) on sheet 8742 together:
(1) Schedule 5, item 2, page 15 (line 15), after "the entity", insert "(the taxation entity)".
(2) Schedule 5, item 2, page 15 (line 25), after paragraph 355‑72(1)(d) in Schedule 1, insert:
(da) in the case of a condition of the primary entity's inclusion in the declared class of entities relating to the Inspector‑General of Taxation—immediately before disclosure of the information occurs to the credit reporting bureau:
(i) the taxation entity has consulted with the Inspector‑General of Taxation; and
(ii) the Inspector‑General of Taxation has confirmed the condition applies in relation to the primary entity; and
(3) Schedule 5, item 2, page 16 (line 1), omit "21 days", substitute "42 days".
(4) Schedule 5, item 2, page 16 (line 2), omit "given to", substitute "served on".
(6) Schedule 5, item 2, page 16 (line 23), after subsection 355‑72(3) in Schedule 1, insert:
(3A) If the primary entity has a *registered tax agent or BAS agent, the Commissioner must serve a copy of the notice on the agent.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:33): Sheet 8742 proposes seven separate amendments to schedule 5, disclosure of business tax debts. The amendments propose additional terms be set into legislation that additional consultation be had with the Inspector-General of Taxation, that additional information be provided to the taxpayer ahead of disclosure and that the information relating to a disclosure be shared with the taxpayer's tax or BAS agent. The government's position is to oppose these amendments. We don't agree to support the amendments to schedule 5. We believe that they are unnecessary, they may impact the effectiveness of the measure and they risk breaching the confidentiality of the taxpayer.
Some of the changes include actions that are already undertaken by the ATO or are not clear in their intent and others should not be included as they seek to insert terms that are not defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. They extend the time frame for reporting and that will impact the overall effectiveness of the measure and increase the risk of a business extending credit to another business with an outstanding debt to the ATO of more than $100,000 for more than three months. They require additional consultation for changes that go above and beyond that which is necessary and which may impact the time it takes for a business's information to be corrected with the credit bureaus, disadvantage the business when they have engaged with the ATO over their debt and potentially require a business's tax information to be shared with a tax agent or BAS agent, risking unauthorised disclosure—for example, when that tax agent is no longer employed by the taxpayer or the taxpayer does not want confidential information to be shared with that agent. In addition, illegal phoenixing has a significant impact on creditors, including businesses, employers and government, of up to $5.13 billion annually and prevents small businesses from operating on a level playing field.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:35): I should give an indication of the opposition's voting position on the same matters. Labor will not be supporting these particular items, although I can foreshadow that there are other amendments on the same sheet that we are supporting. In relation to amendment (1), we're concerned that the concept of a taxation entity is an undefined term under the act. In relation to amendment (2), which requires the ATO to confirm with the Inspector-General of Taxation prior to disclosure of information to credit agencies, we're concerned that this would introduce undue delays into the administration of this schedule, including delays where it's important to provide correct information, which is to the benefit of taxpayers.
We are also not supportive of amendment (3). We consider that the extension of the notice period from 21 days to 42 days in this amendment is excessive. We would support an extension to 28 days. We note that's been moved. While fairness and the ability to contest processes where appropriate is important, we don't want to see companies extending credit to businesses that have excessive tax debts while they're unaware of those tax debts. In relation to amendment (4), this changes the words 'given to' to 'served on'. We consider that might create confusion and is not strictly required from a drafting perspective. Finally, in relation to amendment (6), this is the matter Senator Hume has already referred to. We understand that the ATO does allow taxpayers to elect any given address as their preferred address for correspondence. This addresses the concerns around the ability of tax agents to have access to the relevant information.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Askew ): The question is that amendments (1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) on sheet 8742 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:37): by leave—I move amendments (5) and (7) on sheet 8742:
(5) Schedule 5, item 2, page 16 (after line 16), after paragraph 355‑72(3)(b) in Schedule 1, insert:
(ba) explain:
(i) why the primary entity is included in a class of entities declared under subsection (5); and
(ii) the steps (if any) the primary entity may take to no longer be included in that class before the disclosure occurs; and
(7) Schedule 5, item 2, page 17 (after line 16), after subsection 355‑72(5) in Schedule 1, insert:
(5A) Before making an instrument under subsection (5), the Minister must:
(a) consult the Inspector‑General of Taxation; and
(b) consider any submissions made by the Inspector‑General of Taxation because of that consultation.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:38): As I indicated, Labor will support these amendments. In relation to amendment (5), we support the provision of additional information to taxpayers as outlined in that amendment. In relation to amendment (7), we do support consultation with the Inspector-General of Taxation on all legislative instruments under this bill. We understand that this is something that occurs already, but we think it is important that it is placed in the primary legislation.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (5) and (7) on sheet 8742 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [10:43]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Askew)
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:46): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8749 together.
(1) Schedule 5, item 2, page 16 (line 1), omit "21 days", substitute "28 days".
(2) Schedule 7, item 18, page 25 (line 17), omit "1 July", substitute "1 January".
These amendments do two things. In relation to schedule 5, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, they extend the notification period for businesses whose tax debts are being disclosed from 21 to 28 days. As indicated in earlier remarks by Labor senators, we feel that this will provide an opportunity for affected businesses to lodge an appeal if necessary and that this is a more appropriate time frame. This will enable the processes through the Inspector-General of Taxation to be accessed by affected businesses. In relation to the second amendment, we seek to amend schedule 7 of this bill, and the effect of this would be to close the superannuation salary sacrifice loophole six months earlier than initially proposed by the government. While it may have been legally acceptable, any employer who has been using this loophole has really been engaging in wage theft from their employees. It is actually quite shocking it has taken the government as long as it has to close this basic loophole. But, more broadly, I acknowledge the constructive engagement from the minister in relation to our amendments, and I thank her in anticipation of her remarks.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:47): The first of these amendments extends the time frame on schedule 5 for the disclosure of business tax debt information from 21 to 28 days. That is something the government is comfortable with. The second amendment brings forward the start date of schedule 7, the salary sacrifice integrity measures, to 1 January 2020. Again, may I reiterate Senator McAllister's position of gratitude for the constructive engagement between the opposition and the minister's office on this.
The government has agreed to support the opposition's amendments to schedule 5. They were entirely expected. Those amendments extend the time frame for the disclosure for business tax debt from 21 to 28 days. We think that is reasonable, as the government has previously stated. This is, we believe, a very important measure that is designed to help businesses and lenders who are considering providing credit to another business. Without this measure in place, these businesses would have no way to know about a business's debt with the ATO until court action is taken against that business. By that point, of course, they may have already provided the credit. Extensions to this time frame do increase the risk that businesses, including small businesses, may provide credit to a borrower with large outstanding debts, as they would have no way to know about a business's debt with the ATO until court action is taken against the business. Of course, if the credit has already been provided, it is too late by then.
The government doesn't support any further extension to the time frame for this measure. However, the government has agreed to support the opposition's amendment to the start date for schedule 7 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 from the original start date of 1 July 2020 to 1 January 2020. We believe this is an important measure. The government is committed to preventing employers from using their employees' salary sacrifice superannuation contributions to reduce their own superannuation contribution obligations and to ensuring that the superannuation guarantee is paid on the pre-salary-sacrifice base. The government has already introduced a suite of superannuation guarantee integrity reforms to crack down on employers who are doing the wrong thing by employees, but we recognise that it is important to give small business employers the opportunity to comply with the law prior to imposing significant penalties upon them. A start date of 1 January 2020 for this measure does, we believe, provide sufficient time for industry to prepare for the measure, including by allowing payroll software providers time to make any required system changes to their software. Employers have time, then, to make sure that they are using this updated version of their payroll software and also time for the very important conversations to be had between employers and employees to amend and update any individual salary sacrifice agreements to ensure compliance with this measure.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:51): I indicate to the chamber that Centre Alliance will be supporting both of Labor's amendments.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (10:52): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:53): Today, as we discuss the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019, there are a few issues the Labor Party would like to draw to the attention of the Senate. As we know, the bill is a response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into Australia's intellectual property arrangements—these include patents, trademarks and copyright arrangements—that reported in 2016.
By way of background, back in 2018 the government introduced the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill to this parliament. The bill at that time contained a number of technical amendments to the trademark and plant breeder's rights regimes and was supported by the Labor Party. Most significantly in this bill, the government has, in schedule 1, sought to abolish the innovation patent scheme as part of a broader suite of innovation system reforms. The innovation patent scheme has been a special eight-year patent designed for small and medium enterprise innovations. Small and medium enterprises will leave the standard 20-year patent as the only form of protection.
The Productivity Commission and Intellectual Property Australia did identify that the scheme is underutilised by small and medium enterprises. The Productivity Commission stated in their report that the lower innovation step contributes to a multitude of low-value innovation patents that create uncertainty for other innovators and financiers. Innovation patents are used strategically as a litigation tool to target alleged infringers of standard patents or to increase uncertainty over the scope of rights for competitors. These are important issues that do indeed need to be addressed.
The report also noted that the inventiveness requirement for a standard patent in Australia is too low. They said:
The low innovative threshold has proven more harmful than helpful, including (perversely) for SMEs. It has encouraged a multitude of low value patents, covering everything from a pet bed to a pizza box that converts to a bib. This, in turn, has reduced the credibility that patents provide for attracting finance for commercialisation, and created uncertainty for other innovators who are unsure whether they are infringing on another party's patent. Patent attorneys openly advertise ways in which users can game the system, including to improve their bargaining position in patent disputes and to frustrate entry by competitors.
So Labor understands that the case has indeed been made and that the innovation patent has not been achieving its goals of facilitating cheap and simple intellectual property protection for small and medium enterprises.
Intellect Property Australia have concurred. They've said the innovation patent fails to encourage research and development that would not have otherwise occurred and it is unlikely to provide net benefits to the community. Furthermore, Intellectual Property Australia has identified the problem of low usage. Australian SMEs typically file around 100 innovation patents a year. Approximately 70 innovation patents are certified to achieve enforceable rights. Australian SMEs file between 1,000 and 1,400 standard patents a year. Between 2011 and 2017 Australian small and medium enterprises received between three and 10 times as many enforceable standard patents a year as they received innovation patents. For the past 18 years, Intellectual Property Australia found only 23 Australian SMEs were moderate users of the innovation patent, meaning they obtained at least five innovation patents and certified at least one.
Abolishing the innovation patent scheme without ensuring a fair and affordable access to patent protection will nonetheless negatively impact on SMEs in Australia that require intellectual property protection. SMEs that need patent protection for their innovations will find it more difficult unless Labor's sensible amendments that we've put forward to this chamber are supported and incorporated into this legislation. Abolishing the innovation patent scheme without any alternative mechanism will simply create a significant and serious gap for small to medium enterprises seeking support to access the patent system and to innovate. We note that evidence provided to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, in its inquiry into this legislation, suggested that there would be a significant gap for SMEs if the innovation patent was removed without an alternative mechanism being put into place to assist these industries, to assist small to medium enterprises to access the patent system and to protect their innovations. Medicines Australia, in their submission, said:
… Australia's innovation ranking has fallen from 20th in 2018 to 22nd in 2019 on the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Global Innovation Index. Consequently, there is clearly a need for Australia to develop and maintain a strong and stable intellectual property environment …
Another submitter to this inquiry, the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, expressed its concern about the government's failure to propose an alternative system to the innovative patent. It said:
… the Government has not provided innovative Australian businesses with an alternative system to replace the Innovation Patent System when it is phased out.
This is exactly why Labor is proposing amendments to this legislation that will extend the grandfathering period for the innovation patent. Our amendments would ensure that a statutory review is undertaken to assess the impact on Australian small to medium enterprises of abolishing the innovation patent scheme and make recommendations to facilitate access to standard patent protection for small business in Australia. Our amendments to this bill would provide small business with additional time before the innovation patent is removed and would provide the opportunity for small to medium enterprises to make their case about how the innovation patent is being used and what can be done to ensure that a simple, affordable and administratively effective system is put in place. We understand, at this point, that the government is supporting our amendments and we welcome the government's commonsense approach to doing so. We also understand the government intends to raise inventive step requirements for standard patents. But, given the government's somewhat complacent approach to scrapping the innovation patent, we will be watching this move closely because we want to ensure that the interests of small to medium enterprises are considered when any future changes are made to the standard patent settings.
Our current patent system is difficult for these small to medium enterprises to access, and, as a general observation, SMEs aren't using the innovation patent very much at all. Meanwhile, on this government's watch, Australia's innovation ranking has fallen. It's fallen on the World Intellectual Property Organization's Global Innovation Index. IP lawyers and innovation system experts must concede that the status quo for Australia isn't good enough. Some stakeholders have acknowledged this inadequate current state of play in discussions with the opposition in recent weeks. This is why the opposition is urging the government to promptly address the need for greater support for Australian SMEs in protecting their intellectual property through the standard patent. The government's response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into intellectual property arrangements expressed that the innovation patent failed in its objective to stimulate innovation for Australia's SMEs and that targeted assistance would better achieve that objective. We encourage the government to immediately make public the targeted assistance that will stimulate innovation for Australian small to medium enterprises.
In closing, I want to make clear that Labor believes smaller businesses should be given more time before the innovation patent is removed. They should have greater opportunities to present their case to officials about how the innovation patent is being used in their individual cases and what can be done going forward to ensure a replacement system is put in place in a timely way. There is no doubt that Labor supports the overall intent of the bill, because, as my opening remarks made clear, we can see the flaws in the current system. We do recognise the need for change to the existing patents and innovation system. It isn't delivering for smaller and medium sized businesses. We urge the government to support Labor's amendments and in doing so do the right thing by smaller and medium sized businesses that are especially frustrated by the government's approach to date.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (11:05): I thank Senator Pratt for her contribution. I note that I was Chair of the economics committee that had a look at this particular bill. At first blush I think many of us on that committee heard the phrase 'innovation patent' and thought it was a good piece of marketing. It says something that we all support. However, on close examination, and noting that both a report from IP Australia and a report from the Productivity Commission found this, it actually was failing in doing what exactly its name said it was trying to do—that is, boost innovation in this country. I think, as a parliament—and as a government, obviously—we have to take seriously that recommendation and the fact that the innovation patent system wasn't boosting innovation in our economy. In fact it was failing to do so. In some cases it was actually being used by larger companies as effectively a legal block to innovation from smaller companies. In that light I think this is a very important action taken by this government to maintain Australia's very proud record of being innovative in science and technology particularly, but also in my beloved fields of agriculture and rural and regional innovation. We do need to look at this issue seriously.
One thing that I think is very important to point out—and I think this needs to be more widely canvassed publicly, and I'd certainly encourage IP Australia to communicate this better to the small and medium sized enterprises of Australia—is that there is actually a cheap and effective way of getting patent protection without going through a full patent application, and that is through the provisional patent system. The innovation patents, as I have said, were widely recognised through a number of inquiries as failing in that objective, but there is another option. It is underutilised. I think at least part of the problem there was that there was a lack of awareness amongst the small and medium sized enterprises of Australia.
As Senator Pratt flagged, the opposition are moving some amendments, which I understand we will be supporting, to do with having a review and looking at ways we can encourage a more innovative patent system. I would really encourage small and medium sized enterprises out there to look at the provisional patent system. Just to give you a couple of comparisons, under the current innovation patent system, which is being phased out, the filing and examination fees are around $680, which is not actually that much less than a standard patent application of $860, whereas with a provisional patent filing the initial filing fee is only $110, and that provides up to 12 months in which a small and medium sized enterprise can consider its options and whether it wants to test a market, to take a patent application forward through to full examination and protection.
The provisional patent system—though it is underutilised, in my opinion—is actually utilised by small and medium sized enterprises. Of the provisional patent applications that are filed around 77 per cent are by individuals or SMEs, so there is a system there that business and individuals can take advantage of. It is underutilised, and that is something that I would certainly encourage IP Australia to focus on, making sure that those businesses out there that are innovating in the Australian economy can have knowledge of the provisional patent system and seek to utilise it more often than they do at the moment.
I will briefly run through some of the details of the bill. Both the Productivity Commission and the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property recommended the abolition of the innovation patent system. Both of the inquiries into the innovation patent system found that small and medium sized enterprises gained little benefit from the current system. In fact, the PC found that most SMEs did not obtain any value from the system at all. The Productivity Commission saw that SMEs made little use of the system—74 per cent of small and medium sized businesses and private inventors filing once, but then never again. So, it wasn't creating an ecosystem of innovation where one innovation flowed on to another. Under the system, 83 per cent never received an enforceable right and 78 per cent let their innovation patents expire rather than paying the small cost of renewing. Additionally, innovation patents are relatively costly to third parties and the wider Australian community, with—I think it was the Productivity Commission—finding a net cost of around $11 million per year to all Australian businesses.
So, the innovation patent system hasn't achieved its intended objective of stimulating ambitious and innovative design in Australia. In fact, it has created an environment that fosters a low level of confidence in the ability of SMEs to innovate. Yes, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. I'm sure Senator Patrick may tell us later about some of the companies in South Australia that have been using the system. But we cannot base our laws on the exception. We must base them on the rule, and the rule, as found by the Productivity Commission and by the other inquiry, is that the innovation patent system was actually reducing the level of innovation. It suffocated freedom to operate business and it restricted the ability of SMEs to remain internationally competitive.
One of the biggest drawbacks of the system was the low innovation threshold required to claim a patent. To be eligible for an innovation patent, the invention must be new and is only required to be 'different from what is known before and the difference makes a substantial contribution to the working of the invention'. So, innovation patents do not require that the invention meets the inventive steps required for standard patents. This created a level of uncertainty around whether and where SMEs have the freedom to operate. One particular submission to the Productivity Commission noted that an innovative software project was cancelled due to concerns of undiscoverable patents. This was never the intention of the innovation patent system. It was there to encourage Australian SMEs to innovate and design new inventions, whereas the system created an environment where SMEs feared they were constantly in danger of infringing. When legal fees for IP solicitors can run to $1,000 an hour, most small to medium sized enterprises, as everyone in this place knows, cannot sustain a fight for very long over a patent or an innovation claim.
The inquiries also found that this low innovation threshold created the problem of patent thickets in the market. This is where a large number of innovation patents, marginally different from one another, were set up around the designs of other companies', often SMEs', products. This suffocated the ability of small to medium sized enterprises to actually build on and develop their own product and grow their own level of innovation. Big businesses file almost four times as many innovation patents as small to medium sized enterprises, with Apple—who I think everyone would acknowledge is a very large enterprise—being the single highest filer of innovation patents in Australia.
There is another problem with innovation patents in that they weren't recognised in the international system. This increased the risk of overseas organisations copying the invention, effectively with no consequences. That therefore jeopardised the success of Australian SMEs.
The nature of the patent system is that details are published and in the public domain one month after filing. This is comparable to 18 months on a standard patent. So you had a situation where there was weak protection, where the system was being used by larger companies to prevent innovation in smaller companies and where two significant reviews of the system found that it was actually to the detriment of Australian innovation. I'll go back to where I started: there are other options there for SMEs through the provisional patent system and now, through the review, the government has agreed that it can look at ways of increasing the level of innovation amongst our very worthy small and medium-sized enterprises.
To go through the current system, the standard patent system is the main mechanism, particularly once the innovation patents are phased out. Standard patents provide greater protection for an invention and also incentivise a higher level of innovation. The government is committed to ensuring that this is a smooth transition process, and support services will be available, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises. This includes the ability to fast-track requests, which enables applicants to have their applications examined in an expedited fashion at no additional cost. SMEs will receive an examination report within eight weeks—about the same amount of time that an innovation patent takes. SMEs will be further supported through the application process by the availability of dedicated IP Australia case managers. These case managers will be able to support applicants through the process, as well as help with international applications and protections. IP Australia's web presence will be redeveloped to ensure that SMEs have 24/7 access to this advice and support, as well as accessing the intellectual property portfolio management tool.
Finally, the government will ensure that SMEs in regional areas will be supported by providing education services via events and online. Again, this need to deliver a greater level of education to small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those outside the major population hubs, is very important. People need to know what they have to do. They often need to get support. We've all heard stories of people, particularly in rural and regional Australia, who are inventors but who don't necessarily understand the law, don't necessarily understand how to protect their intellectual property rights. We know how important it is that they do.
I was at a conference with the head of the Defence Forces, and he was saying that one of the most important things for small and medium-sized enterprises when dealing with military procurement is to make sure they actually have their intellectual property tied down. They need to have themselves fully protected if they expect to do business with the Australian military. That's understandable from Defence's point of view. They need to know that what they're buying is properly owned and properly controlled by the company that's selling it to them, but that is obviously a potential hurdle for the small and medium-sized enterprises who wish to try to achieve something in that space. Through this provision of services to small and medium-sized enterprises, IP Australia can greatly assist in that sphere by making sure SMEs can act quickly on an idea, can get the advice they need to get protection in overseas jurisdictions and can get the dedicated case managers they need to make sure that the proverbial t's are crossed and i's are dotted and to make sure that the intellectual property protection is there so they can do business both in Australia and globally in the most efficient and effective way possible.
Getting rid of the innovation patent system over a period of time will reduce a level of trivial and undeserving innovations being covered by our intellectual property rights system. We want a fairer environment. We want to restore innovation confidence to SMEs. As I've said, the government will support the amendments proposed by Senator Pratt. These amendments require the government to review the accessibility of patents of small and medium sized enterprises in the 15 months after the bill is enacted. The phasing-out of the innovation patent system will start 18 months after the bill is enacted rather than 12 months after enactment. By encouraging SMEs to use the standard patent system and the supports available, we will create a more balanced IP system with the ability to enjoy all the benefits to our economy that science, innovation and new technological developments bring to us all.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:20): I thank Senator Brockman for his monotone and unconvincing contribution to the debate.
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator PATRICK: If he wants to listen to what I've got to say, he may well learn a few things—as I have done as I've wandered around the country talking to small businesses. This bill, amongst other things, seeks to end Australia's innovative patent scheme. In committing itself to this course of action, the government drew upon a range of studies which argue that the current IPS does not deliver Australian small to medium enterprises what they need. This is in direct contradiction of the submissions from SMEs and certainly does not reflect the views and experiences of a number of South Australian innovation based companies that spoke to me personally on this issue.
The government is suggesting that the IPS does not deliver on the purpose for which it was established: to incentivise research, development and innovation. Such commentary shows a disturbing lack of understanding about what drives Australian companies to innovate. Companies are motivated to conduct research and development for two predominant reasons: they have an idea that will ultimately make them money and the government offers R&D tax concessions which help alleviate cost and risk associated with research and development.
Senator Brockman suggests otherwise. He suggests that the motivation for doing innovation here in Australia is that you can get a patent at the end. That shows a complete lack of understanding of business. I don't mean to denigrate Senator Brockman. I know he's toeing the party line and probably doesn't really mean what he says. That is not the reason why people innovate in this country—not at all. I know because I ran an R&D cell for about 10 years. I used the patent system. I know its traps; I know its benefits. But at no time did my company ever suggest to me, when I was running an R&D cell, that the reason we were doing it was for anything other than making some money at the other end from a good idea.
There was evidence provided by Mr Gibbs at the committee hearing. He appeared in a personal capacity, but he is an intellectual property lecturer at Monash University and an IP attorney. His evidence was comprehensive and disturbing. He provided evidence showing how patent applications from Asia have risen from obscurity to dominance in the international patent applications system over the last 20 years. He stated:
China is now the biggest player in Asia, although Japan and South Korea are also big players.
Mr Gibbs stated that 'China recognised the importance of controlling intellectual property ownership' and he advised the committee that China has a regime similar to Australia’s IPS—which is called 'utility model applications'. He said:
They are cheap and quick to obtain and they last for a shorter term, whereas standard patents are expensive, take a long time to be granted and last for up to 20 years. By providing both types of patents and encouraging citizens to use them, China has succeeded spectacularly in growing its local ownership of patent rights, and this has translated into extensive ownership of international patent rights.
It's clear from the Chinese experience that there is utility in such a scheme. I don't know whether the government has noticed this but China's economy is booming and ours is sitting relatively flat, somewhat due to the fact that the government has no vision. In the Governor-General's speech—and I'm not critical of the Governor-General, because of course he's just reading the message of the government—is a whole bunch of housekeeping stuff on health, education, mental health and infrastructure. They are important things, but if the Labor opposition had got into government, the same things would have been in the speech. There's nothing in there about vision—nothing.
So it's with this wisdom, and based on a false premise, that the government is now moving ahead and abolishing the scheme. If you think I'm getting angry about it, I am—because I've spoken to South Australian companies who do not want this to go ahead. I'm going to explain exactly why they use the innovation patent scheme and why the Productivity Commission has misconstrued its own statistics. Australia needs to be using every tool at its disposal to facilitate the protection of innovations. Mr Gibbs provided concerning evidence on the patent take-up rates in Australia. He advised the committee that in China each year 21 patent applications are filed for every 10,000 residents. In Germany it drops down to 10 per 10,000, in the US it's nine per 10,000, in the UK it's three and in New Zealand it's two. Does anyone want to guess what it is in Australia? It is 1.4 applications per 10,000 people, compared with 21 per 10,000 people in China. That is a telling statistic. Mr Gibbs said that if innovation patents were abolished, the figure for Australia would drop to 1.02 per 10,000 people. Importantly he went on to say:
In my opinion, the Australian government should be taking steps to improve Australia's future economic position by increasing the ownership of patents by Australians. If you're looking for reasons why Australia's productivity has been stagnating, then the number of Australian owned patents per capita is a key indicator. In my opinion, the abolition of innovation patents would be a step in the wrong direction.
I and many South Australians agree with Mr Gibbs.
Let me now explain why the Productivity Commissioner is wrong. I sat down with a number of companies last week—and I acknowledge that the minister's office and IP Australia attended. We listened to a group of CEOs of South Australian companies talk about the way in which they use innovative payments. Listen carefully, because this is something that the Productivity Commission, for all its wisdom, for all its resources, didn't manage to discover. I talked to one company in South Australia that has 40 or 50 physicists working on innovative ideas—things that they can turn into products that they can then export and are exporting. What happens is that they spend about a year with 40 physicists working on something as a stepping stone to something else.
Just to give a made-up example to help the chamber out, if you are trying to get to a new type of mobile phone, you've got to have a number of steps along the way. Those steps are not necessarily things that you can patent using a standard patent. A standard patent might require, to use another example, 100 points, and all someone has to do to knock out a patent is knock away one point. If you have 99, the patent doesn't stand. With the IPS, you only have to get to 80. So, you can use it to protect a stepping stone while you move to the next stepping stone, which you also protect with an IP, and then the next one. And then finally you get to the point of a standard patent, where you now protect the idea that you want to take to market.
When you look at the statistics, that's the reason these IPs are not renewed. They achieve a purpose and the company moves on and makes an application for another one to protect the next stepping stone and so forth. And that's going to go. That company in South Australia is a great company and it employs a number of South Australians and it generates exports. They are going to be harmed by a Liberal government that says it's interested in exports and in supporting small business.
Senator Gallacher asked a question in the committee. He asked the government: 'Is there a saving if you get rid of the innovation payments? Do you save money?' IP Australia answered, 'We don't save money.' So you are shutting down a scheme that is useful to Australian companies and it's not going to save you a brass razoo. This is crazy stuff. It makes no sense to shut down the IPS when it is useful and valued by SMEs, especially if retaining the system costs you nothing. There's a certain arrogance in officials and indeed politicians who are telling that to companies and entrepreneurs—particularly when the companies and entrepreneurs don't get a regular pay cheque like the officials do. Everyone in this chamber knows that, at the end of the month or every fortnight, they're going to get a pay cheque. That's not what happens in the corporate world. You have to run a business sensibly. You have to work out ways to make money. We are arrogantly telling these people what they don't need.
Make no mistake: the South Australian companies I talk to want to retain this. By shutting it down, you are hurting Australian businesses. If anyone wants to contact my office, I'm happy to bring you down to South Australia and show you. You can talk to these companies. That's what the Productivity Commission didn't do, that's what IP Australia didn't do and that's what the government didn't do.
When we asked these companies about the consultation, none of them were aware of it. They were too busy making money, creating jobs and exporting materials overseas. They don't have time to watch what the Productivity Commission is doing. They could of course employ someone to keep an eye on the Productivity Commission and keep an eye on the chamber. But these are people who are trying to do business—and you're trying to shut them down, you're trying to hurt them. There is arrogance in officials and politicians doing that.
Labor has proposed some amendments, and Centre Alliance will support them because they're the lesser of two evils. But I ask Labor: have you got this in writing? Have you got this secured? I know what happened when you made a deal on encryption. You made a deal on encryption and let legislation go through, but the government didn't honour that. For some reason you don't remember that. So I hope you have a solid commitment on this. Senator Pratt said she will be watching the government. And I will be watching the opposition to make sure you get what has been committed to you by the Liberal coalition, because if you don't you will have sold out Australian SMEs.
I will be moving an amendment later and I'll be asking for the support of the chamber. I note that Senator Roberts is here. If Senator Roberts wants to come across to my office, I've got submissions from Queensland companies that say they do not want this abolished. The bill does a lot of good things but the schedule that removes the innovative patent scheme is flawed, it's not well thought through. It's been designed by people who are remote from the real business world. I urge people to support my amendment when I move it.
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (11:34): I note the comments that were just made by Senator Rex Patrick. Obviously the good senator is extremely passionate about innovation and the ability of small and medium enterprises both in his home of South Australia and across the country to pursue innovation and unleash that entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, which I believe Australia is still renowned for.
In defence of my colleague Senator Brockman, from Western Australia, I think Senator Brockman is aware of the commercial realities underlying the development of patents and the small and medium sized enterprises who develop ideas and seek to take those ideas, through an intellectual property process, to the market and generate revenues, ultimately producing and deriving profit for the benefit of themselves. From my experience of dealing with innovators in the small and medium sized enterprise sector—and I'll come to that in a moment—there's also that spirit of wanting to pursue an idea and commercialise it so that people both in this country and around the world have the benefit of it. In my experience, it isn't just about money. Money is extraordinarily important to it; the profit is extraordinarily important to forming the basis of a sustainable business, but there is that desire to also commercialise an idea so people across the world can have the benefit of that idea. And I've seen that in the context of the mining industry.
I worked for 12 years in a mid-tier mining company that set up two mines in one of the poorest countries in the world, in Laos—a copper and gold mine, and a gold and silver mine. In that company, we actually used intellectual property that was designed right here in Australia by small and medium sized enterprises. I would always say to people when they talked about mining that mining is not, as it is sometimes characterised by certain stakeholders, simply digging a big hole in the ground and operating that hole like a quarry. I am not intending in any way to cast aspersions upon my friends who run quarries—very important business in this country. But the reality is that mining relies on innovation and technology. And I saw, in my previous life outside of this place, the great work that companies are doing in this country in that space. This includes things like environmental monitoring systems. It includes things like tyre management systems, which mean mining companies can utilise their tyres and maintain them so they get greater use out of those tyres. That's what being a sustainable business is about, and there are a lot of great things which are being done in that space.
In relation to that sector, there are difficulties with the current system. Senator Brockman did a good job, I think, outlining some of those real practical issues for those small and medium sized enterprises, which Senator Patrick is passionate about—and I recognise his passion in standing up and fighting for them. The protection for low-level incremental innovation will no longer be available with the abolition of this category of a provisional patent. That's important because the Productivity Commission actually found that that low threshold allows for a proliferation of low-value patents and what's referred to as patent thickets. What's the result of that? I can tell you what the result of that is. I have an example. It's a quote from a submission from a company in the resources space, an SME who supplies the mining industry—an industry I was involved with and am a passionate supporter of. It's been de-identified for privacy reasons. The SME was disadvantaged by the innovation patent system, disadvantaged by the occurrence of what's referred to as patent thickets—the proliferation of low-value patents. Who uses that flaw in the system? It's the big companies seeking to crush that small and medium sized enterprise entrepreneurial spirit, which Senator Patrick spoke so passionately for.
Here's a direct quote from one of those SMEs: 'We've been recently threatened by a big corporation with a letter of cease and desist for'—a certain product—'which has been widely used in the mining industry for almost 30 years and regarded by some of the leading experts as common knowledge. Fortunately, I've gathered enough evidence and had the money to be ready for a potential court action. However, there are so many other small-business owners who could not afford the $1,000-plus per hour legal fees from a decent IP solicitor, and I think that sort of IP system is the antithesis of fair competition.'
So, whilst I respect Senator Patrick coming into this chamber and defending businesses that form part of his constituency in South Australia, the reality is that there are, equally, small and medium-sized enterprises who are currently being disadvantaged by the system, which this bill is seeking to address. Again, I reiterate: it is the protection of low-level incremental innovation that's causing this issue of low-value patents and patent thickets for small and medium-sized enterprises in the mining sector. And it's not just the mining sector. Many small software firms wrote to the Productivity Commission and the former Advisory Council on Intellectual Property stating, for example, that 'innovation patents make innovation in the software industry much more difficult because of the low threshold and uncertainty about freedom to operate'.
Again, I'm quoting from the actual submissions. There was consultation. If there hadn't been appropriate consultation, I wouldn't be able to stand in this chamber today and quote from them, to be quite frank. Here are some examples of submissions from software firms: 'The innovation patent system provides a high financial legal risk to incidental infringement'; 'protection for fairly unsubstantial ideas'; 'a tool in legalised anti-competitive practices benefitting only market-dominant companies'—I'll repeat that: a tool in legalised anti-competitive practices benefitting only market-dominant companies—'and hence, a detriment to consumers.' Senator Patrick maybe needs to take some care that he is not going to throw out the baby with the proverbial bathwater in this debate, because there are small and medium-sized enterprises in the mining sector, as I've referred to, and in the software space, who will be affected. My home state of Queensland has a great history of software development and IT innovation. There are small software firms who are concerned that the current system provides—and I'll quote again—'a tool in legalised anti-competitive practices benefitting only market-dominant companies'. I personally think that's something this Senate needs to address, and this bill seeks to do exactly that.
Let me give you another quote from a submission, another quote from the product of the consultation that occurred in relation to this legislation: 'Patents have damaged innovation in the software industry, and I personally have been involved in an innovative software project that was cancelled due to concerns of undiscoverable patents.' This player in the small and medium-sized software space actually cancelled the project because of concerns about what the current system was producing—cancelled the project. That's crushing innovation. That's actually crushing the innovation which Senator Patrick speaks so passionately about. So I think we need to be careful before coming to hasty judgements with respect to this matter.
I'll go further. Innovative Australian company iSignthis supports the phasing out of the innovation patent system, giving an example of a software innovation from a competitor that was rejected for a patent in the USA due to iSignthis's own pre-existing patent. I mean, any system that produces an outcome like that has to be cast into question. However, the competitor's innovation was able to be protected in Australia as an innovation rather than a standard patent. This curtailed iSignthis's freedom to operate. It substantially increased its costs and impinged upon its freedom to operate—an innovative Australian company, iSignthis.
Lastly, I'll give you another example. Innovative Australian companies ResMed, Cochlear and Mylan all support the phasing-out of the innovation patent for similar reasons. These are great Australian companies. These are wonderful Australian companies that, on the basis of ideas in Australia, innovation in Australia, research and development in Australia, have commercialised their IP, their products, taken them to the market, provided a wonderful service to countless people all over the world and are listed on our Australian Securities Exchange. What did they say? 'Innovation patents can be a disincentive to invest in Australian R&D and expand or maintain manufacturing in Australia.' That's exactly what we want to do. We want to not just maintain manufacturing but expand manufacturing in this country. Why do they say this? Because of the way they can be strategically used by competitors. I must say, when a senator refers to innovations in the People's Republic of China with respect to intellectual property, I think that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I would be very, very happy to put our patent, innovation and intellectual property protections against some other countries in the world any day.
This is what ResMed, Cochlear and Mylan are saying: 'Innovation patents can be a disincentive to invest in Australian R&D and extend or maintain manufacturing in Australia. The disincentive to invest in Australia and potential enforcement of innovation patents against Australian manufacturers has the ripple effect of reducing Australia's tax base.' Again, that should be something this chamber is fighting against. We should be conducting the research and innovation in this country. We should be conducting the manufacturing and expanding that manufacturing in this country. The creation of that wealth should lead to a higher tax base in this country, which will provide the services that the Australian people have a right to expect when living in this country. There are some material issues with the current patent system. Substantial consultation took place and that consultation did discover those concerns from actual operators—small operators, medium sized enterprises and the larger doyens of the research and enterprise sector in this country, who have provided such an inspiration to all of us.
Can I also say: there are alternatives. The provisional patent system provides one of those alternatives. SMEs will not be disadvantaged, or should not be disadvantaged, by this change. The few who do use innovation patents regularly will receive dedicated support and services from IP Australia to ensure they are not negatively impacted. If they are, we should all come back to this chamber. We should go to our ministers and raise those concerns. That's exactly the reason I put my hand up to serve in this place: to make it easier, not harder, for small and medium sized enterprises to be innovative, engage in that research and establish manufacturing bases in this country. Some of the services that IP Australia will provide include fast-tracking of standard patent applications, access to dedicated IP Australia case managers, a purpose-built platform for small businesses to access tailored products and dedicated outreach programs which will deliver patent education to small businesses in regional areas. Those services are extremely important and need to be provided.
I would like to finish on a positive note. I was delighted last month to attend a STEM camp for grade 11 students in my home state of Queensland, at the Queensland University of Technology—one of our great universities in the state of Queensland. It was an absolutely inspiring day. There were grade 11 students from all parts of Queensland in the camp for the course of a week, working with some of the smartest minds in my home state of Queensland in the STEM field.
The one workshop I attended, which left a longstanding resonance with me, was in relation to industrial design, intellectual property. There were six teams of grade 11 students who were asked to design a stool. I don't know about you, Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman, but I find it easier talking about this workshop than I would have found participating in it, and I said that to the students themselves. These students were asked to design a stool that would carry 75 kilograms of weight, although I must thank one of the students—when I approached his stool, he said, 'It's okay, Senator, it will actually take 200 kilograms.' Maybe it was over-engineered but it was safe and prudent to be so!
I was so impressed by these students' intellect, ingenuity and innovation. They showed me prototypes. One showed me on his laptop how they'd used design features on his computer to design the stool. There were artistic flares and flourishes with the stools. My favourite—the one that would take a 200-kilogram senator—had decidedly art deco flourishes. It was quite an inspiration. I said to those students and I say to this chamber today, I think this country has a fantastic future when we've got such talented students, in all of our home states, who are being supported by educational institutions and those of us seeking to make it easier, not harder, for them to realise all of their opportunity and full potential. Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:51): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, in speaking on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019 I want to speak mostly about the amendments to be proposed by Senator Patrick. I won't be voting on this bill, because our party will not be supporting any critical legislation until the government comes good with supporting dairy farmers with a code of conduct. That is essential. That is a matter of priority. But we also want to protect small business and we need to continue to ensure that small business is given a fair go in our country. Small business is the largest employer in Australia.
Coming back to this legislation, the purposes of the original legislation were to provide protections for the owners and developers of intellectual property in Australia, including providing protections through the innovation patent system. Many small businesses rely on incremental innovation, and this has been protected by using the rapid and low-cost protection provided in the innovation patent system. The bill before the house would phase out this important protection without replacing it with a system offering the same advantages that the innovation patent system provides. What would be left is the standard patent system, which is expensive and slow and provides uncertainty in the level of protection it should create for the business that is developing innovative technology and ideas.
The existing innovation patent process offers rapid and low-cost protection for these small businesses. Without that level of protection offered through the innovation patent system, small businesses, which provide substantial employment and potentially turn over millions of dollars annually, may lose all if an unscrupulous business should steal the technology related to commercially relevant operations before it is fully protected. This government has said that it will stand up and support small businesses—just as it said it will be building dams. Three days ago it said it will be building dams. It turns out it's two dams with incremental improvements to existing dams. That's it—no vision, no forethought, no rescuing of farmers today let alone in the future.
To dump the innovation patent system and erase the advantages of rapid and inexpensive patents is contrary to the interests of Australian small businesses relying on the protection of their innovative technology. In my experience, in my reading of history and technology, innovation comes from the individual. Small businesses rely on the individual and they create the perfect ground for the fertilising and developing of ideas. This is, in a sense, a trade measure that works contrary to Australian interests. That's what the government is proposing. Why would they do so?
Perhaps the Prime Minister's admission a week ago last Thursday, when he talked about unaccountable, internationalist bureaucrats who dictate the globalist agenda, leads to the answer.
Australia became a signatory to the UN's Lima Declaration in 1975, when Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, the Labor Prime Minister, signed the declaration. It was ratified the following year by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, the Liberal Prime Minister. The original signing was at the second general conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UNIDO, held in Lima, Peru. By the way, major countries around the world did not commit to it but Australia did. We committed to adopting trade measures designed to ensure increased exports from developing countries to developed countries, including Australia, and to stimulate free trade transfer of our processes, our management and our technology to the Third World. Look at what that has done. These measures have been devastating to Australian manufacturing, agriculture and industry generally and to the Australian economy in general. A global approach has not been good for Australian interests, when Australian interests must come first. The government's responsibility is to the people of Australia and to the country of Australia.
In 1994, the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court, outlined the way in which our government had been usurped by the United Nations, in particular, and other globalist entities. That was 25 years ago. Two years later, 23 years ago, Pauline Hanson MP, as she was known at the time, also spoke about the erosion of Australian sovereignty and the decimation of Australian industry due to the UN and other globalist entities. Ten years ago, when I learned about it, I started speaking about it. We can assure everyday Australians that we will work relentlessly to restore Australian sovereignty. We are far too closely aligned with the UN, whose interests are not aligned with the interests of Australia. We need to restore governance in Australia that is working for Australia's interests, and we will continue to work to restore governance in Australia that is working for Australia's interests.
We need to protect small business intellectual property. The major parties—Liberal and Labor—have let down the Australian public in many ways. This bill, which neglects small business, is just another example of the sellout of the interests of Australians by the government. So I support the amendments that, as he foreshadowed, Senator Patrick will move, because they will maintain the protections achieved by the current innovation patent system, and we are opposed to the removal of the innovation patent system.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (11:57): I rise to speak on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019. This bill is the second piece of legislation that delivers on the Liberal-National coalition government's commitment to review and reform our intellectual property system. Before I begin my contribution, allow me to address some of the comments that Senator Patrick made earlier. The company to which Senator Patrick referred in his contribution is, as I understand it, an ASX listed company with an annual turnover of $2 billion. This is not a small or family business, which the innovation patent system was designed to support. Indeed, Senator Patrick has highlighted the problem with the broken system: it has been used by large multinational corporations, such as Apple, at the expense of small and family businesses.
Our government makes no apology for standing up for small and family businesses. After all, we are the government for small and medium enterprises and family businesses. These reforms are designed to deliver a system that will work for those businesses. Importantly, the government has undertaken significant consultation with the small business sector, as well as with other industry stakeholders, with respect to our proposed changes. Senator Patrick is way off track when he claims that no consultation has been undertaken. As part of its review into the system, the Productivity Commission held hearings in every capital city in every state, including South Australia, as well as in regional locations. And, in its own review into the innovation patent system, IP Australia undertook consultation as well. This is not rushed reform. That is why it is now the second bill looking to amend our intellectual property laws. This bill is the result of over four years of careful, considered consultation with the industry and with our stakeholders. The intellectual property system is an important element of the economy, because it promotes and incentivises investment in creativity, innovation, research and technology, which is exactly what our government seeks to enable.
In 2015 the Productivity Commission was asked to undertake a review, and that's when the consultation started. The government responded to the Productivity Commission's recommendations in 2017, and we then undertook making the amendments necessary to deliver on our response. The first bill, which was implemented in 2018, was commended on its thorough stakeholder consultation by the Senate and received royal assent on 24 August 2018. This bill builds on the previous bill's stakeholder consultation and addresses the further recommendations by the Productivity Commission to reform the patent system, which is contained in schedule 1 of this bill. The bill also includes amendments in response to a number of other recommendations made in 2013 regarding compulsory licensing of patents. It also makes a number of technical changes to streamline and modernise the administration of Australia's intellectual property systems. As I said before, extensive consultation has been undertaken all the way through, because as a government we want to work with industry, stakeholders and small to medium enterprises to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship.
We have great minds in Australia, including in regional Australia. In fact, the combine harvester was invented in Australia and is now used internationally. That is what our country is capable of and that is what our government wants to support. Many of our best ideas are born from small to medium enterprises and family businesses. But, unfortunately, as found by the Productivity Commission, they are the least likely to benefit from our existing innovation patents system. The cost of the innovation patent system appears to be a barrier for small to medium enterprises, which does exactly the opposite to what the system was designed to do, and that is to encourage innovation. Senator Patrick had a go at my colleague Senator Brockman because he interpreted Senator Brockman's comments that small to medium enterprises would innovate only if there was a patent at the other end. But in saying that, he rightly identified that it's not about the patent for people innovating; it is about making money at the other end. And the best way to enable people to make money from their good ideas is to give them a patent that provides them security without doing so at excessive cost to the industry.
The Productivity Commission found that our current innovation patent system places too much of a cost burden on small to medium enterprises, so as a government we are taking that on board. We have consulted and we are acting. We are not removing people's access to patents. We are streamlining the system so that they have better certainty and better security.
Part 2 of this bill begins the phasing out of the innovation patent system. It is a second-tier patent system that is not working. The government's decision to phase out this system was based on an assessment of its impact on the innovation system and on the economy more broadly.
The government accepts the amendments that are proposed by Senator Pratt. These amendments will require us to review the accessibility of patents with small- to medium-sized enterprises in the 15 months after the bill is enacted, and that is a sensible thing to do, because we are talking about making business for small to medium enterprises easier, better and more efficient, so it is a sensible amendment that we will be supporting.
The phasing out of the innovation patent system will start 18 months after the bill is enacted rather than 12 months after the enactment. They system was originally intended to encourage small to medium enterprises to do more research and development and to protect their smaller inventions. But, as I've said before, the top five applicants over recent years have been Apple and four large Chinese entities. The evidence shows us that our innovation patent system is not doing what it is designed to do. It is not encouraging small to medium enterprises to apply for innovation patents. In fact, the cost burden is actually pushing them out. So, this reform will remove the uncertainty and confusion around granted but unexamined patents in the system. It will prevent firms from using the system as a strategic tool in infringement matters, and it will remove unnecessary costs on third parties and consumers that have been generated by the system.
In drafting this reform, we did take our time—but we took our time to make sure we got it right. A number of possible reforms were considered as an alternative to the complete abolition, but these improvements would have substantially limited the advantages of the system itself. Through our consultation we have identified that just correcting the current flaws of the innovation patent system would have resulted in the reintroduction of a system similar to the petty patent system, which was previously abolished. So this legislation is designed to implement reform that ensures that existing rights are maintained and protected and that there will be no impact on innovation patents filed before the legislation commences.
SMEs will not be disadvantaged by this change, and those few that do use the innovation patent system regularly will receive dedicated support and services from IP Australia to ensure that they are not negatively impacted. Senator Patrick has questioned why the government are doing this if, as per advice he has received, there is no government cost saving from IP Australia in doing so. But for this government it is not about reducing costs; it is about saving businesses money and making it easier for businesses to do business. It is about supporting small to medium enterprises, and it is about making the system better so that those who have good ideas can get the patent protections they need without excessive costs to themselves or third parties. To do so, IP Australia are going to provide services to small to medium enterprises that include the fast-tracking of standard patent applications so that small to medium enterprises that want a fast patent can get their application examined as quickly as possible—as quickly as they could have for an innovation patent, and at no additional cost.
They will also provide access to dedicated IP Australia case managers, which will include support for small businesses to seek fast protection in Australia and in overseas markets. They will provide a purpose-built platform for small businesses to access tailored products and services, including 24/7 assistance, industry advice and intellectual property portfolio management tools. They're also developing dedicated outreach programs to deliver patent education to small businesses in regional areas to support the diversified intellectual property strategies required throughout the business cycle.
The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science has conducted extensive stakeholder consultation to better understand the needs of small to medium enterprises in relation to commercialising their ideas, and all these support networks are designed to realise that. The department of industry and IP Australia are working closely together to explore and develop further opportunities to support small to medium enterprises in doing this. The government does not accept the amendments to the bill that are proposed by Senator Patrick and Centre Alliance to remove the amendments commencing the abolition of this innovation patent system.
I will also briefly address some of the other aspects of the bill. Part I of the bill introduces an objects clause to the Patents Act. A number of inquiries, including that of the Productivity Commission, found that the patent system lacked a clear objective or overarching framework to guide decision-makers and the community and therefore recommended the introduction of an objects clause into the Patents Act—and this certainly is not an unusual clause for a piece of legislation. The objects clause will provide an overall statement of general principle about the purpose of the Patents Act and will provide assistance to the courts to interpret the legislation and to resolve uncertainty and ambiguity. It will ensure the patent system remains adaptable and fit for purpose as new technologies and innovations are developed in the future.
Schedule 2 will improve the transparency and accountability for Crown use of patented technology, while protecting the rights of the patentee. Crown use is a rarely used safeguard in the Patents Act that allows the government to access and use patented technology without authorisation from the patentee. The changes we are proposing today will clarify the circumstances in which Crown use can be invoked. It introduces a level of ministerial oversight and provides a clearly defined standard for the remuneration paid to the patentee—that is, we are going to respect the innovator and the patent holder.
Schedule 4 requires the courts to consider whether it is in the public interest to grant a compulsory licence. Compulsory licensing provides a mechanism to prevent the patentee from restricting others from exploiting the invention in the local market, where the patentee has failed to do so itself. These provisions are rarely used. The changes will amend the compulsory licensing provision to replace the reasonable requirements of the public interest test with a new public interest test, the focus of which will be whether demand for a product or service is being met on reasonable terms and whether access to the patented invention is essential for meeting that demand. The amendments will improve the clarity and certainty of the legislation and strengthen the rights of patentees by allowing access to the patent only when it is in the public interest to do so.
The remaining schedules to the bill make minor technical amendments that will streamline procedures and improve the efficiency of the IP system. They make minor changes to the Patents Act and Trade Marks Act to correct errors, to streamline procedures and, importantly, to reduce red tape when applying for IP rights and applications.
This bill builds on the government's extensive consultation with the sector and with stakeholders and it enhances Australia's IP system. It supports innovation, creativity, businesses and growth. It supports and encourages innovation while making it easier for small-to-medium enterprises to get a standard patent and to have their innovation rewarded without excessive burdens. I commend the bill to the chamber.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (12:13): I rise to speak on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019. As part of our government's plan to grow our economy and create 1.25 million more jobs, we have a longstanding commitment to innovation and technology. This commitment has seen the economy create over 1.3 million jobs since we were elected. That's why Australia's economy is growing at 2.3 per cent—a stronger rate than the OECD average and all other G7 economies, except for the United States. We recognise that innovation is the catalyst for creating business and job opportunities in the future. As a government, we've demonstrated our commitment time and again to developing considered policies that get the right settings, and to providing unprecedented funding, informed by expert advice. We on this side of the chamber are making sure innovation includes all Australians. It's about bringing along traditional industries while we're also developing new technologies, industries and firms. And it's about making sure that this system remains accessible to all. Australia's intellectual property system makes an important contribution to the economy, because it promotes and incentivises investment in creativity, innovation, research and development.
This bill has been brought before the Senate by the government as a responsible and measured response to a Productivity Commission report which recommended a range of improvements to our IP arrangements. The commission completed its public inquiry into Australia's IP arrangements and published its first inquiry report on 18 August 2016. They were asked to consider whether current IP arrangements provide an appropriate balance between access to ideas and products and encouraging innovation investment and the production of creative works. It's critical that this system not only keeps pace with expectations in the 21st century but remains accessible to all individuals and organisations seeking to have their good ideas protected, giving them the confidence they need to create and grow new businesses.
This bill represents the second set of legislative measures in response to their first report and proposes a number of technical fixes to the system. The singular focus and objective of Australia's intellectual property system is to support innovation and investment in the Australian economy, ensuring businesses have the confidence to grow, to employ more Australians and to keep our nation at the global forefront of developing new technologies, ensuring Australia's IP arrangements keep pace with advances in technology and new ways of doing business in an increasingly globalised world. This innovation and research plays a significant part and is critically important to ensuring our industries and universities remain on the cutting edge.
Nowhere is this more important and prevalent than in my home state of Western Australia. Acting Deputy President Brockman, you certainly know how important this is. Since the iron ore industry was opened up by Menzies and the Court government in the 1960s, our resources sector has been on a consistent and rapid trajectory of growth, enabled by significant advances in the homegrown development of technology which has increased production, productivity, efficiency and, very importantly, safety. We all know that this comes at significant cost. Over decades, we've seen billions and billions of dollars spent by industry, businesses large and small—in partnership with government—and research institutions on research and development activities.
Australia's strong intellectual property arrangements have played a critical role in providing the necessary confidence in protections to enable this development. Australia, and Western Australia in particular, would be a very different place if the system were not as robust as it is. Government and industry from around the globe are now looking to my home state of Western Australia to provide solutions and technology for their own industries. We see this in the resources sector, the agricultural sector and remote operations like the subsea and space sectors, just to name a few. As a direct result of research and development over the last few decades, we have now seen significant new opportunities from across a range of new and adjacent industrial sectors—which, on the face of it, seem to bear no relationship to each other—coming together to solve quite significant problems. Just look at our oil and gas industries and the mining sectors and see how they're contributing to the space industry. Just look at the space industry and how that stands to contribute to agriculture.
If I was to give one example of this type of collaboration being enabled in WA, it would be the partnership between Woodside Energy and NASA. If you go to the Woodside building in Perth, you'll find what they call a robonaut—a next-generation robot powered by artificial intelligence and technology, developed by our resources sector through decades of investment, trial and error and breakthrough after breakthrough in remote operations. And there are others. Rio Tinto and Fortescue Metals have remote operations controlled from systems operating out of Perth. It's fascinating to see this. But, with Woodside, it's intended that these robonauts will be deployed on the next space station. It's an exciting project which demonstrates what can be achieved when Australian industry has the confidence and environment to be creative, innovate and invest significantly in R&D. It's just one example of what we're doing as a state in this space.
The government's commitment to ensuring our IP arrangements remain strong is ongoing and unwavering. In 2015, the Productivity Commission was asked to undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's IP system. We wanted to ensure that it didn't just keep pace with community expectations and new ways we're doing business; we also wanted to look seriously at how accessible it is to innovators looking to protect their work in terms of the cost and process.
The government responded to the Productivity Commission's recommendations in August of 2017. The first bill, which implemented the government's response to the trade mark and plant breeders' rights system, passed through both houses of parliament in 2018. It was commended on its thorough stakeholder consultation by the Senate committee and received royal assent on 24 August 2018. This bill builds upon that. It's the next necessary step. This bill takes into account the extensive stakeholder consultation and addresses the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission to reform the patent system in schedule 1. It also includes amendments in response to a number of Productivity Commission recommendations made in its 2013 report into the compulsory licensing of patents in schedules 2 to 4.
Extensive consultation has been undertaken for this bill so that it provides stakeholders with several opportunities to provide feedback on the proposals. There's widespread agreement that the innovation patent—a second-tier patent system—is not working. The government's decision to phase out the innovation patent was based on an assessment of its impact on the innovation system and on the economy more broadly. We accept the amendments to this bill proposed by those opposite. These will require the government to review the accessibility of patents for small and medium sized enterprises in the 15 months after the bill is enacted. The phasing out of this innovation patents system will start 18 months after the bill is enacted, rather than 12 months after the enactment, so these are fine.
The system was intended to encourage SMEs to do more R&D, to protect their smaller inventions, but the top five applicants over recent years have been Apple and four large Chinese entities. This reform will remove the uncertainty and confusion around granted but unexamined patents in the system. It will prevent firms from using the system as a strategic tool in infringement matters and remove unnecessary costs on third parties and consumers generated by the system. We do not accept the amendments proposed by Senator Patrick to remove the amendments commencing the abolishment of the innovation patents system.
With regard to crown use, we recognise that this is a rarely used safeguard in the Patents Act 1990 that allows the government to access and use patented technology without authorisation from the patentee. These changes would clarify the circumstances in which crown use can be invoked, introduce a process of ministerial oversight and provide a clearly defined standard for the remuneration to be paid to the patentee. These amendments would increase the certainty and transparency of these provisions whilst protecting the rights of the patentee.
The changes made in this bill will amend the compulsory licensing provisions to replace the reasonable requirements of the public test with a new public interest test. The focus on the new public interest test will be whether demand for a product or service is being met on reasonable terms and whether access to a patented invention is essential for meeting that demand. These amendments will also improve the clarity and certainty of the legislation and strengthen the rights of the patentee, while allowing access to the patent only when it's in the public interest to do so. This bill will also make minor changes to the patents and trademarks acts to correct errors, streamline procedures and reduce red tape in applying for IP rights applications.
In conclusion, the benefits of these amendments are clear. There is a record number of Australian businesses undertaking innovation—innovation which is supported by this government. The Productivity Commission review was particularly important, with data demonstrating small businesses are leading the way, with over 60 per cent of all small firms classified as innovation-active. That's something that we can be very proud of in this country. We are leading the way. Technology and innovation can help businesses improve the way they're working and solve everyday problems. Ultimately, they're the key drivers of long-term job creation, which is, of course, something that we all need to be committed to. These activities are also growing our economy, creating jobs and providing more opportunities for all Australians. I commend this bill to the chamber.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:26): I thank my fellow senators for their contributions to this debate. I'd also like to thank all the stakeholders who contributed to the consultation we engaged in for the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019. We value the important contributions made by the industry, the research sector, and intellectual property legal practitioners.
The intellectual property system is an important part of the economy, because it encourages the development of new technologies, products and markets. It helps to drive the innovation research that leads to improvements in the technology, jobs and growth that benefit all of us in Australia. In 2015 the government asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's IP system. This included copyright, trademarks, patents, designs and plant breeders' rights. The government responded in August 2017 and decided to address the recommendations relating to registered rights through two packages of legislative reform. The legislation implementing part 1 of the government's response to the Productivity Commission inquiry concerning trademarks and plant breeders' rights received royal assent on 24 August 2018.
This bill contains the second suite of changes to address recommendations regarding the patent system. These changes will ensure that our patent system provides an appropriate balance between the rights of patent owners and the interests of the general public. The proposed legislation will ensure that the patents system remains adaptable and fit for purpose as new technologies and innovations are developed in the future. It'll improve the transparency and accountability of the Crown use of patent technology and designs and provide greater clarity and certainty for applicants and patent owners in compulsory licensing matters, ensuring that the interests of the patent owner and the public are considered. The proposed legislation will also streamline and modernise aspects of the intellectual property system, improving efficiency and reducing regulatory costs for Australian business.
This bill was reviewed by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which, on 4 September, tabled its report recommending that the bill be passed. The government thanks the committee for its report. We also note that as part of this review Senator Patrick, from the Centre Alliance party, recommended that the provisions repealing the innovation patent be removed from the bill. The government notes this recommendation but does not agree with it. Evidence available to the government indicates that the innovation patent system is harming innovative businesses and failing to meet its objectives to incentivise innovation amongst small and medium enterprises. Our goal is to support Australia's small businesses to make the most of their innovative efforts and help address the complexity and expense the IP system can present to those businesses.
In conclusion, the intellectual property system plays an important role in our economy. It assists Australian businesses to commercialise their ideas and compete effectively in the global marketplace. This bill will help ensure that Australia's intellectual property system remains fit for purpose into the future and balances the needs of innovators and users of technologies with those of the general public too.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:29): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8758 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "12 months", substitute "18 months".
(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, add:
4 Review of the accessibility of patents
(1) The Minister must cause a review of the accessibility of patents for small and medium sized enterprises within 3 months of the commencement of this section.
(2) Without limiting the matters the review should consider, the persons conducting the review must examine:
(a) the cost of applications for patents; and
(b) processing times of patents; and
(c) advice provided by the Australian Government with respect to the patent application process; and
(d) awareness of the patent application process.
(3) The persons conducting the review must provide the Minister with a written report of the review within 12 months of the commencement of the review.
(4) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
In speaking to those now, I would highlight to the chamber that we have recognised the need to address the issues that this bill has put forward. We did raise our concern about the lack of time that small-to-medium enterprises have in adjusting to these new arrangements, and we would like to see time in place for IP Australia to be able to work through issues with small business so that new arrangements can be put in place. We're grateful to the government for listening to our concerns in this regard.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:31): I rise to indicate that the government will support the amendment moved by Senator Pratt on behalf of the opposition. We recognise that the patent system can be complex and difficult to access for small and medium businesses. The innovation patent system was intended to help address these complexities, but there are some improvements that need to be made. We agree with the intent of the opposition's amendments to review the accessibility of the patent system for small businesses when the innovation patent system is no longer available. The findings of the review will help support the work that is currently being done by IP Australia and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to help small businesses understand and engage with the IP system. I thank the opposition for their constructive engagement on this issue and I recommend that the Senate accept this amendment.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (12:32): I rise very briefly to indicate that the Greens will be supporting these amendments. I want to make it clear that stakeholders did raise with us significant concerns about the impact of this bill unamended, and particularly the phase-out of the innovation patent system. The government has, unfortunately, made a bit of a mess of these reforms to our intellectual property laws which, if implemented as originally presented to the Senate, would harm innovation, especially by small and medium businesses.
(Quorum formed)
Question agreed to.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:35): by leave—I move Centre Alliance amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8738 together.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items.
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 5 (line 11), to be opposed.
I reiterate what I said in my second reading speech—that there are many companies in South Australia, and presumably around the country, that are utilising the IPS scheme. They are using it for good purpose, which allows them to develop products and allows them to sell those products to make money. They employ a range of people and they export products. It is those people who do not want this IPS scheme abolished. It is companies. It is the very people that the Liberal-National coalition purport to represent who want this to stay. I know the Productivity Commission came out with a number that said there was a cost of $11 million to business in pursuing innovative patents. However, that's a choice of the commercial entities. That is their choice.
I asked businesses those questions when I was at a meeting in South Australia, in front of the minister, in front of IP Australia. I asked them whether it was a problem for them. No. It's a choice that they make. You are limiting choices of Australian businesses. You are shutting down a scheme that a number of companies rely on. I am sure that it's not just restricted to South Australian companies. I suspect it's nationwide. This is damaging and should not be permitted.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:38): As I indicated in my summing-up speech in the second reading debate, the government does not accept the amendment proposed by Senator Patrick on behalf of Centre Alliance. The evidence available to the government indicates that some aspects of the innovation patent system are harming innovative businesses. It fails to incentivise innovation, particularly amongst small and medium enterprises, and it causes confusion and uncertainty.
The amendment proposed here would keep the innovation payment with all of those associated harms. It would also remove the proposed 'objects clause' from the bill. That would prevent the government from keeping its commitment to phasing out the innovation patents system and introducing an objects clause. Both these recommendations were accepted by the government in response to the Productivity Commission's review into intellectual property. I recommend the Senate does not support this amendment.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:38): The Labor opposition is not supporting this amendment today. We recognise that this amendment would strike at the heart of the overall intent of the bill, which is to address the problem in relation to the low innovation threshold, which has proven more harmful than helpful, including for small to medium enterprises. We've seen a multitude of low-value patents covering everything from a pet bed to a pizza box that converts to a bib. This, in turn, has reduced the credibility that patents provide for attracting finance for commercialisation.
We've accepted that these are key issues with the current regime, and the amendments moved by Senator Patrick strike at the heart of some of the things that, with the government, we agree need to be addressed. We're concerned that we've only come some of the way in addressing the issues that this legislation has been brought before the chamber to address. We note that our amendments, which have been successful, will provide more time to address these issues, but we're very concerned that, on this government's watch, Australia's innovation ranking has fallen on the World Intellectual Property Organization's Global Innovation Index. We urge the government to address the need for greater support for Australian SMEs in protecting their intellectual property through the standard patent. Having said that, we affirm that we are opposing these amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ): Senator Patrick has moved, by leave, these two amendments together. Because amendment (2) on sheet 8738 opposes part of the bill, I will put that first. The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [12:45]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fierravanti-Wells)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ) (12:49): Senator Patrick had moved, by leave, two amendments together. Because amendment (2) on sheet 8738 opposed part of the bill, I put that question first—namely, that schedule 1 stand as printed. After the vote there is now no need to move amendment (1) on sheet 8738. With the indulgence of the chamber: there are now two procedural motions required to complete the committee's deliberations on the bill and I propose to move to that.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:49): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Member for Maribyrnong; Former Member for Dobell
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (12:50): Today I explore the tale of two unions. In 2011, broadcaster Neil Mitchell asked Mr Shorten if he supported embattled former Labor MP Craig Thomson, whose reputation was in tatters. 'You've run a union. You understand these things. Do you support him?', Mitchell inquired. Mr Shorten replied, 'Oh, yes. I believe him.' It is instructive to examine the parallels between Mr Shorten and the disgraced former Labor member for Dobell, Craig Thomson. Both entered parliament in 2007. Both used their positions as union leaders—Shorten as national secretary of the AWU and Thomson as national secretary of the HSU—as springboards for their political careers. Craig Thomson used HSU members' money to finance his campaign for the New South Wales seat of Dobell. Meanwhile, in Victoria, Mr Shorten used AWU members' money to finance his run for Maribyrnong.
Last Friday, Justice Bromberg of the Federal Court delivered a decision on the matter of the Registered Organisations Commission's attempt to inquire into the use of AWU members' money in Maribyrnong and other places. The question was one of whether AWU money directed to Mr Shorten's campaign, GetUp! and multiple ALP campaigns by Mr Shorten was properly authorised under the relevant legislation and union rules.
After two years of delaying tactics from the AWU to try to avoid scrutiny of these issues, it is timely to revisit what this is all about. It's worth drilling into the detail of the HSU and AWU in 2007, as the similarities are striking. A Fair Work Australia report found that Mr Thomson had spent almost $300,000 of union funds without authorisation. The report found that Mr Thomson had employed, on the HSU payroll, two staff members for the purposes of working on his campaign. This spending was undertaken without the authority of the HSU national executive, as required under its rules. It accused Thomson of eight breaches of union rules or of workplace legislation. The Federal Court concluded that Thomson had acted unlawfully in employing such staff without disclosing that fact to, and obtaining the approval of, the union's national executive. Justice Jessop found also that this was in breach of Mr Thomson's obligations to act in the best interests of the union and to not use union funds to gain an advantage for himself. That contravened three sections of the then Workplace Relations Act.
Meanwhile, in Melbourne, in February 2006 Mr Shorten won endorsement for Maribyrnong. According to Fairfax, his subsequent campaign came to be known as the 'black hole of Maribyrnong' because of the funds and resources devoted to a safe seat. As in Dobell, AWU funds were used to fund campaign staff in Maribyrnong. As with the HSU, there is, so far, no evidence to suggest that these funds were used in accordance with union rules. The Heydon royal commission found that about $20,000 was paid by the AWU's national office to a Ms Ward, who had a contract for part-time work as a union campaign officer. This arrangement effectively was identical to that employed by Mr Thomson in relation to the employment, on the HSU payroll, of a Ms Stevens and a Mr Burke. In yet another striking coincidence, Mr Burke surprisingly ended up as a digital communications assistant in Mr Shorten's office. Ms Ward told the royal commission that she was offered the job by Mr Shorten, who had told her she would work on the 'Labor for Maribyrnong' campaign whilst actually an employee of the AWU.
Also during the Heydon royal commission we had the revelation of a previously undisclosed $40,000 donation from Unibilt for the services of a Mr Lance Wilson, who served as Mr Shorten's campaign director in Maribyrnong whilst on the Unibilt payroll. In the lead-up to the 2007 election Unibilt paid Mr Wilson, who was actually working as Mr Shorten's campaign manager. The donation of this position was personally negotiated by Mr Shorten, and this was at the same time that Unibilt and Mr Shorten were about to open pay negotiations with a company—an extraordinary conflict of interest.
The AWU subsequently billed Unibilt for hours Mr Wilson supposedly spent contracted out to Unibilt for his supposed research, when all the time he was working for Mr Shorten's campaign—all this facilitated by false invoices. Neither Unibilt, AWU, Mr Shorten nor the ALP disclosed this donation until the royal commission's investigation some eight years later. In his evidence before the royal commission, Mr Shorten professed ignorance; he blamed his staff. The contact officer on the return submitted to the ALP for the Maribyrnong federal electoral assembly was none other than the same Lance Wilson. No-one would have been more aware than Mr Wilson that the cost of his services was being donated to Mr Shorten's campaign by Unibilt, and there is no good reason he should not have disclosed this.
To conclude, at least for now, we have reached an interesting situation in relation to the Registered Organisations Commission's attempt to secure the documentation that could establish whether or not the use of AWU members' money on Mr Shorten's campaign, GetUp! and other ALP candidates was properly authorised. One can't help noticing the similarities between Mr Thomson's and Mr Shorten's modus operandi. The issue in both cases is whether union members' funds were used for personal political gain without proper authorisation. The same obligations that Justice Jessup found that Craig Thomson had breached are exactly the same provisions that Mr Shorten stands accused of breaching by engaging in exactly the same conduct.
I note that the decision by Justice Bromberg allows for the Registered Organisations Commission to continue its investigation into any possible breaches of these provisions of the act. I also note that His Honour emphatically rejected every single claim by the AWU that the ROC's investigation was tainted by a supposed improper political purpose. Amongst other things, the judgement by Justice Bromberg describes the AWU's claims in this regard as 'assertion', 'highly speculative', 'misconceived', 'difficult to follow', 'expressly denied' and 'unsupported by the evidence'. Damningly, His Honour concluded:
… the AWU has not presented any evidence or even suggested a case concept or narrative that provides a motive for the knowing and deliberate conduct that it ascribes—
to the Registered Organisations Commission. Justice Bromberg found that the Australian Workers Union refused to cooperate with the most straightforward of requests for information by the Registered Organisations Commission, yet its national secretary, Mr Walton, says that everything is above board, and the AWU says it has nothing to hide—as, of course, does Mr Shorten. I'm sure Craig Thomson would believe them.
The case for proper powers and penalties for the Registered Organisations Commission to ensure integrity for the protection of union members becomes greater with each revelation and court finding that is made. That is why I trust that in due course the Senate will pass this vitally important piece of legislation to ensure integrity for registered organisations to protect honest union members from the activities of dishonest trade union officials who use their members' money and use the position that they are given on trust for their own personal self-advancement.
Economy
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (12:59): I will just touch on Senator Abetz's contribution, and—shock, horror!—unions support union members running for parliament. That's why the Labor Party was formed. We've been doing that for 130 years because we want to further the interest of working Australians, and that is what we will continue to do. That is what we have seen in the case of Mr Shorten and the Australian Workers Union.
But what is of particular importance for Australia at the moment is that almost every day we hear some alarming economic news about the future of this country. Earlier this week we saw the Deloitte report, and today it has been reported that the IMF has slashed Australia's economic growth forecast. It is down to 1.7 per cent in 2019 and 2.3 per cent in 2020. This is a 0.4 per cent downgrade, which is twice the global downgrade, and it is four times as large as the downgrade for the eurozone and advanced economies. This would place Australia's growth behind that of Greece, Spain and the United States.
This is the news that we are being confronted with this morning, following the release of the IMF report overnight, and I think it's good to put this in the context of the rhetoric that we see from those opposite. We know they're on a victory lap. We know the hubris that we've seen since they won the election. But the reality for Australians on the ground is not matching up with that rhetoric. We see that continually through the economic news that Australians are being confronted with, and the government need to accept responsibility for this because this is their economy.
They've now been in power for six years, so Australians and, in my home state, Queenslanders have suffered from six years of this LNP government. This is their record since taking office. They've overseen the worst GDP growth in a decade. The latest board minutes of the Reserve Bank of Australia noted that year-ended growth had slowed to 1.4 per cent, the lowest outcome in a decade, and that employment growth was forecast to slow over the period ahead. So it's bad and getting worse and, as I mentioned earlier, this is on the back of the recent Business Outlook by Deloitte Access Economics, which forecast growth well below the Morrison government's projections. It said that the pain in our economy has been homegrown—in other words, they are responsible for it—and we are unlikely to see wages accelerate or unemployment fall much in the coming year.
As I mentioned, this is on top of the bad economic news that we got this morning. This has been a week of disastrous economic news for the country. But the government have created these economic conditions as they have no economic policy. Since the election, the Reserve Bank has had to cut interest rates to 0.75 per cent, which is a quarter of what they were during the GFC. We are facing stagnant wages and declining living standards. Almost two million people are looking for work or for more work. There is record household debt.
These conditions, which the LNP has created, are hitting Queensland, and regional Queensland, harder than most. Since 2013, when Labor left office, unemployment has grown to 6.4 per cent in Queensland, compared to 5.3 per cent nationally. It's even worse in places like Wide Bay, where it is 7.3 per cent; Townsville, where it is 8.3 per cent; outback Queensland, where it is 12.1 per cent; Mackay, where it is 7.2 per cent; and Central Queensland, where it is 8.5 per cent. Young people in Queensland are facing record high unemployment, too, under the LNP government. They've nearly doubled the youth unemployment rate for Central Queensland, which is at 22.5 per cent. In outback Queensland it is 27.3 per cent. In Mackay it is 15.5 per cent. In Wide Bay it is 20 per cent. In Townsville it is 17 per cent. A Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland report found that Queenslanders are facing a regional jobs crisis. Not only are there high levels of unemployment, thanks to the LNP government; people are forced to wait up to 18 months for a job. If you live in Mount Isa and you lose your job, it would take an average of 18 months to get a new one. In Toowoomba it would take 67 weeks. In Wide Bay it is 26 weeks. In Mackay it is 23 weeks. In other parts of Queensland, by comparison, it is eight weeks.
Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, has urged the Morrison government to get infrastructure projects shovel ready in case they are needed for an emergency stimulus to pull Australia out of an economic downturn. In fact, he has suggested seven times since the election that infrastructure is a good form of stimulus. The IMF has joined with the RBA governor in calling for more fiscal stimulus and investment in infrastructure. It said, 'Monetary policy cannot be the only game in town and should be coupled with fiscal support where fiscal space is available.' That's a clear call there from the IMF.
Compare this to what is actually the responsibility of this government. In the last federal budget, an additional $2.6 billion was allocated to Queensland for infrastructure, the majority of which—$2.3 billion—won't be seen until 2023-24, so it is some five or six years off before this money will be spent. Less than 30 per cent of this government's so-called $100 billion 10-year infrastructure program is budgeted to be spent in the next four years. In six years of this government's dismal record on infrastructure, it is spending $5.1 billion less than promised. The government hasn't been able to name a single project that will be brought forward. Queensland was the only state government that responded with projects that could be brought forward. The Prime Minister today could have announced the fast-tracking of a range of desperately needed projects in regional Queensland, including Mackay Ring Road Stage 2, Cairns Southern Access Stage 5, Rockhampton Ring Road, the Cunningham Highway upgrade and the Beerburrum to Nambour Rail Upgrade. Those are all projects that are vitally needed and would assist in the economic development of the state.
Cross River Rail, a $5.4 billion project, has received zero dollars in federal funding. Back in 2012, the independent Infrastructure Australia declared that Cross River Rail was ready to proceed and placed it at the top of its national Infrastructure Priority List. The Linkfield Road upgrade out near my office in Strathpine won't receive a single extra dollar in funding in this term in parliament. Currently two lanes on Linkfield Road merge into one before drivers turn north onto Gympie Arterial Road. It is a serious choke point and notorious traffic accident black spot. On the existing budget timetable, no money will flow to this for seven years.
This comes down to the fact that the LNP don't have an economic plan. We know they don't have an energy policy and they don't have a wages policy. The reality is that this is hitting Australians and hitting Queenslanders hard. They like to talk a lot about quiet Australians, and I assure you that quiet Australians will not stay quiet for very long while these economic circumstances continue and while the government continue to operate without a plan that has their interests at heart. So I'd say to this government: have a think about those young people suffering in Queensland, particularly in regional Queensland, where there is high youth unemployment. There is a long wait for those people to be able to get into the workforce. These people deserve a federal government that is doing its bit to ensure that they get the opportunity to get ahead. Sitting back and acting arrogantly, continuing on with your victory lap post the election, is not going to do anything to assist these people. That is something that is desperately needed across Australia but particularly in regional Queensland.
Environment
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:07): Today I want to reflect on something very important to me. Seven years ago I stood here, in this same place, and delivered my first senator's statement. I spoke then of the devastating effects and impacts of plastics in our oceans. I didn't realise it at the time, but I was the first person in this building, in federal parliament, to give a speech on this issue. However, back then very few people were paying attention, especially in this place.
Oceans are the lifeblood of our world. Oceans are an important part of our identity and our character as a nation. Today we're at an incredible junction in history, one where we stand to lose so much of what we love if we don't act definitively right now. Our oceans are choking on a toxic tide of marine litter, which grows daily. It's estimated that there'll be more plastic than fish in our oceans by 2050. Dangerous microplastics with attached toxins are now being found in our food chain, especially seafood. Indeed, sadly, we've even found such particles in plankton, even in the Antarctic, the base of our food chain. That's why I have just introduced the Product Stewardship Amendment (Packaging and Plastics) Bill 2019 and established an inquiry, which is now receiving submissions.
I'd like to reflect that we have come a long way in seven years on this issue. The media, along with so many amazing advocates and champions for the marine environment, have played a critical role in raising education and awareness for action. In contrast, one thing is for sure: words are cheap. Just last week the Prime Minister told the UN:
… Australia is committed to leading urgent action to combat plastic pollution choking our oceans …
While I'm chuffed that he raised this issue as a priority in the UN—especially considering that no-one from the government has ever talked about this issue—to be honest, I haven't seen much leadership on this issue at all. In fact, on the same day, the Prime Minister gave a press conference, saying that when it comes to plastics recycling:
We don't want to see you know, taxes, and large levels of state intervention … What we want to see is industry leadership …
Well, exactly who's leading who here? What the Prime Minister means is that it's the same old 'business as usual'. Voluntary codes of conduct, or schemes, or plans, or policies, don't work. They are what have gotten this country into this mess in the first place. This is what the recycling industry themselves have been telling us. What stakeholders in the waste industry want most is leadership, with a capital L. The community wants clean, healthy waterways. They want our recycling crisis fixed.
The Greens have listened to this call. Our bill reflects what the European parliament has already 'led' on, with the phasing out of single-use plastics, and simply takes agreed-upon voluntary targets set by the industry and legislates them into law. They can talk the talk, but now they're going to have to walk the walk. I love the water; I love the ocean—and, believe me, there are plenty of times in this place when I'd rather be out there on my board than sitting here in parliament. But it's moments like these here today that make it worthwhile for me. Our bill is a culmination of seven years of hard work by many people, including two world-first Senate inquiries into this exact issue, marine plastics in our ocean. This bill will give this country, and all Australians, a chance to make lasting change.
In my last few minutes, I want to reflect on the fact that today, in the Sumac forests in the Tarkine in north-west Tasmania—a Tarkine wilderness that was recommended for national heritage listing, a Tarkine wilderness that remains unprotected, a Tarkine wilderness that faces daily threats from logging, from mining, from inappropriate development and, most recently, from wildfires brought on by dry lightning strikes in an increasingly dry environment, an environment caused by climate change—a number of protesters, who have been in this forest for the last three years and who have successfully stopped Forestry Tasmania from going and logging these forests, are likely to be forcibly evicted and arrested. Standing here today, I would like to say to those protesters how proud I am that they've stood up for our forests, for our biodiversity, for one of the last great wild places left on the planet. I'd like to thank them and to say how proud I and my party are of them. I know millions of people around this country would also be proud of them and what they've been able to achieve.
In a time of climate crisis and climate catastrophe, the best available science tells us that to have any chance of meeting our Paris targets, any chance of reducing our emissions—and I will say, many of the world's best scientists also say that our Paris targets aren't going to be enough to stop us from increasing climate breakdown—we need to protect our existing forests.
We need to plant new trees, indeed, if we're to have any chance. Yet in April next year forests protected under the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, between Labor and the Greens and the forestry workers and their unions, will be ripped up by the Liberal government in Tasmania. And 400,000 hectares of some of the most biodiverse, beautiful forests on this planet will be available for logging—an industry that has long had to be subsidised, that sells conflict timbers that nobody wants.
To those protesters in the Sumac forest today: I thank you on behalf of the Australian Greens—and I know on behalf of many other Australians—for the stance you've taken to protect those forests. I know this is a long way from being the end of this battle, and many more people will be joining you, in coming times, in Tasmania and all around this country to stand up for our forests, to stand up for our beautiful biodiversity and the wilderness values that make Tasmania and parts of Australia internationally famous and sought after. I applaud you, and I thank you for the stance that you have taken. Just know that right around the world people are rising. People are taking action to stand up for future generations.
We might not have the support of the big parties in a place like this, but what we have going for us is science. The best available science tells us that we must protect our forests if we're going to stop increasing extreme weather events, fires. Incidentally, the latest research out of Tasmania—a forum I attended recently—tells us that the areas burnt in the catastrophic fires of 2016 and 2019 were previously logged areas. The rainforests, the areas intact, had the best chance of surviving those fires. Yet these are the exact areas that are being targeted by stupid, ignorant politicians in my state who aren't listening to the science and who aren't listening to the community. They've got a shock in store for them as people rise up right around Tasmania and right around this country—indeed, right around the world—and say, 'Enough is enough. Business as usual is not an option.'
It's time to take real action on climate change. It's the time in history to be transitioning to renewable energy. It's the time in history to be protecting our biodiversity and our world-beating forests in Tasmania.
Kimberley
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (13:17): I take this opportunity today to update the Senate on my recent travels in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, including my visit to the Djarindjin airport located 200 kilometres north of Broome, along the Cape Leveque Road. Djarindjin is a coastal community and home to around 390 residents. I'll touch on the Cape Leveque Road shortly but, suffice to say, the money that the federal government's committed to this project is money very well spent. I can attest to this personally. A few kilometres from the Djarindjin community is the Djarindjin airport, a joint venture between the Broome International Airport and the Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation.
The operation has a fantastic story. The project began in 2010 when the Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation entered into a partnership with the Broome International Airport. This partnership sought to build a facility that could provide refuelling for helicopters flying to and from the Browse Basin oil and gas fields. To establish such a facility, the Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation needed to borrow $6 million, and the interest-free loan was facilitated by the Broome International Airport.
This facility was built in 2011, and by April 2018 they've fully paid off the loan. What an absolutely fantastic achievement. The airport now services up to 45,000 passengers per year with up to 20 helicopters per day passing through Djarindjin to be refuelled, with a record of 24 helicopters and 30,000 litres of fuel just in one single day. This is in a very remote part of our country. The airport has the capability to take small, twin-prop planes on its runway, and the RFDS use Djarindjin as its main Dampier Peninsula patient transfer station.
What makes this story even better—and the reason why I was particularly keen to visit—is that the airport is fully staffed by the local Aboriginal population who live on country. The fellas up there have no background in aviation, but they were trained to the absolute highest standards. As a result, they now operate the Southern Hemisphere's only civil hot-refuelling program—that is, where the rotors of the helicopter are still spinning while the staff are refuelling the helicopter. It's amazing. I got to see it for myself.
Because all the airport staff live on country, their wages go back into the local economy and they can spend the time that they aren't working with their families. They can continue to participate as part of their community, which allows them to mentor and train other members of their society, creating a positive cycle where no external assistance is required. The airport also has a zero tolerance to drugs and alcohol. Of course, this project provides opportunities employment and training in other than just the core responsibility of refuelling.
With the high risks of hot refuelling, Djarindjin has a fire truck on stand-by at all times. It's piloted by airport staff. Cleaning, gardening and day-to-day maintenance are also undertaken by the on-country staff. I think the airport may have the greenest lawn in the Kimberley—it's phenomenal! I believe that the initiative shown by the Djarindjin Airport community to build and operate Djarindjin Airport could serve as a model and inspiration not only for other Indigenous communities around Australia but for all businesses.
It would be remiss of me at this point to not mention Nathan, the chief executive of the Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation. He's not only seeking to expand the airport to take direct flights from Perth but also taking the initiative to establish businesses in the Djarindjin community which can be passed on as a going concern to interested locals. These include a caravan park—to capitalise on the influx of tourists when the Cape Leveque Road is sealed—a coffee shop and a screen-printing business. It is some of the most beautiful parts of our country up there. Tourists want to be able to go and connect with it, and this organisation is looking to exploit every opportunity that that can create. In this sense, Nathan is using the Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation as a business development vehicle. He's also diversifying the community's economy. Nathan is such a positive driving force.
I mentioned earlier the Cape Leveque Road. This is a 205-kilometre road stretching from just outside of Broome all the way to One Arm Point. I drove on it just last week. At present, 90 kilometres of this road remains unsealed. However, the sealing of this 90-kilometre stretch is currently underway and, having driven on it, I can assure you that it is absolutely necessary. I've been to many places, and it's one of the roughest gazetted roads that I've driven on. Thanks to a $52.5 million grant from the Commonwealth government, this project is underway. You can see where they've graded the new section.
The unsealed section is a rough and dusty section and it's only passable in a four-wheel drive, and that's only in dry season. If you go there in the wet, there's no way you'd get through. It can become a quagmire, and it's often completely impassable, cutting off vehicle access for the communities and the cape. The road is important for those who live there to be able to get in and out. It's also for tourists and other visitors who want to go up into that wonderful landscape, particularly in wet season. Tourists don't tend to go up there in wet season, but I've had the great fortune of going up there then. It's absolutely magical. The country just comes alive. This is going to enable all-year access into these places, except, of course, in extreme weather events. There are 71 Indigenous communities on the cape, as well as pastoral stations, pearl farms and tourist destinations. The sealing of this road is not only a tourist issue but, as I was saying, an important safety issue as well. The project is expected to be completed in 2021.
While I was in Broome, I was also pleased to meet with the president of the Broome Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Taylor, and hear firsthand about the opportunities for the town and the region. Resources, agriculture and tourism continue to be driving forces behind this region's economy. The federal government is committed to supporting these industries, including projects such as the Sheffield Resources' Thunderbird Mineral Sands operation, which received a loan of up to $95 million from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund. This will provide employment and economic opportunities for the town. This project would not be possible without the support of the Commonwealth government. Further to this, the $3.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance program and the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program are also contributing to the economic strength of the Kimberley, making infrastructure links in the region more durable and usable year-round.
On the tourism front, the Kimberley Marine Support Base has received state approval and is set to transform the industry in Broome. With tides as high as 10 metres, conventional docks just aren't cutting it for cruise ships. They simply can't get in and out. They're obviously subject to the natural flow of the tides, which doesn't always align with the schedule of the boats that are passing through. So this base will operate as a floating dock on a hinge—so it will move up and down with the tide. It's going to allow for longer stays for tourists in town and bring greater economic opportunity into a very important and beautiful part of our country. This is going to mean more local jobs for the local economy.
I'm very optimistic about the economy in Broome and the broader Kimberley. I've spent a lot of time up there over the last 10 years with my previous work. While employment won't change everything when it comes to some of the social challenges that many in these communities, sadly, face, the reality is that, without employment, nothing will change. So I'm very optimistic about what can happen in the Kimberley, and I look forward to being involved with its growth in the coming years.
Road Safety
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (13:27): I rise to contribute on a familiar topic: road safety. I want to put on the public record, once again, the performance—or, should I say, the lack of performance—of the federal government in this area. Just to recap: in 2014, in the 44th Parliament, the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety group was formed. Along with the honourable Darren Chester, I formed that group. It was re-established in 2016, and it's also in operation in this parliament. The objectives are easy, simple and clear:
1. Elevate within the Federal Parliament greater awareness of road safety.
2. Inform Federal Parliamentarians of the need for continual improvement in road safety outcomes.
3. Inform Federal Parliamentarians of the national and international initiatives with potential to improve road safety outcomes.
4. Ensure the Federal Members of Parliament are aware of the enormous social and economic cost of failing to continually prioritise improved road safety outcomes.
Dare I say it, if there is an emergency besetting this parliament it's in road safety—44,000 Australians are hospitalised each year, which is 100 each day. Those are not my words. Those are the words of John Crozier, from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Over the last five years the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety has worked very closely with esteemed stakeholders like the Australian College of Road Safety— in particular, Claire Howe, Lauchlan McIntosh and new president Martin Small. Safer Australian Roads and Highways, known as SARAH, started by Peter Frazer, who lost his daughter, Sarah Frazer, due to a road a crash, have led the way in their campaign to 'drive so others survive' and have had government departments highlight the issues during National Road Safety Week. The Australian Road Safety Foundation and their partners, led by Russell White and Donna Caley, run Fatality Free Friday, where we have a pledge-signing opportunity in parliament every year. The Australian Automobile Association have worked really hard in the road safety space. Michael Bradley and Craig Newland have really stepped up with their lobbying in this place and reports for political and interested parties. Their new initiative of investment in new research is very welcome.
I go to the actual performance of the federal government. I have to put all this on the record. These are not my words. These words are from well-respected stakeholders in the community. In the Australian Automobile Association's annual report, Elizabeth Perry, a South Australian, the President of the Australian Automobile Association, stated:
The leaders of Australia's motoring clubs believe the time has come for a new federal approach to road safety management, for which there is widespread support.
… … …
The lessons delivered by the failures of the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 were acquired at great cost: through deaths, serious injuries, lasting disabilities and immeasurable grief. Governments must not ignore these lessons.
In the executive summary, the report states:
Australia has suffered a lost decade in the management of road safety.
Failures of transparency and accountability mean about half of the targets set by the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20 ... will be missed, and a further quarter cannot yet be measured. Many road safety measures are worse today than they were when the NRSS was agreed in 2011.
The Australian Government's own Inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy's failings found that strong national leadership will be essential if we are to turn things around.
In response to the Inquiry's findings, the Australian Government commissioned the Review of National Road Safety Governance Arrangements, which released its final report in August 2019.
Its first key finding was that: "The Australian Government has not provided sufficiently strong leadership, coordination or advocacy on road safety to drive national trauma reductions."
Associate Professor Jeremy Woolley said:
A year has passed since the Inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy delivered its report to parliamentarians calling for an urgent response to the national road safety crisis.
The Inquiry's recommendations were channelled through the Council of Australian Governments' Transport and Infrastructure Council ... in October 2018. To date, a Governance Review has been completed and an Office of Road Safety has been set up, although that office's remit is not yet clear.
The Governance Review concurred with the Inquiry's findings. Its completion should mean that the other recommendations are now acted upon in earnest.
… … …
The newly established National Office of Road Safety must be given the capacity and authority to address a key finding from the Governance Review: the "need for greater leadership, strengthened management, heighted accountability and more effective coordination."
Professor Woolley makes this very important point:
The 2018 Inquiry found that the National Road Safety Strategy was not supported by adequate data, definition, timelines, capacity, resources or accountability for actions. No wonder governments failed to implement the Safe System approach to road safety over the past decade.
We must not repeat these failures ...
Dr John Crozier, who co-chaired the inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy, is the chair of the National Trauma Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. He stated:
The hospitalisation of 44,000 Australian road crash victims each year is an annual tragedy to which we have become habituated.
Each day, more than 100 of us are hospitalised following a road crash—a silent epidemic.
The annual trend in these numbers is upward.
The Australian Automobile Association has found four identifiable issues that need to be addressed:
Develop a National Road Safety Data Hub within the Office of Road Safety. This would coordinate and analyse the collection of road infrastructure safety data to help develop future policy and investments.
Link infrastructure funding to road safety outcomes, and use incentive payments, to ensure road funding proposals are tied to safety standards.
Encourage the uptake of safer vehicles and work towards targets to lower the average age of Australia's vehicle fleet.
Ensure the new Office of Road Safety has genuine authority to oversee the development and progress of the next National Road Safety Strategy, which will take effect from 2021.
Madam Acting Deputy President, I know that you've probably heard this contribution a number of times. The stat in my home state of South Australia is that there has been a 77 per cent increase in the number of deaths. In Victoria, the number of deaths has increased by 46.6 per cent. Let's put that in people terms. In South Australia, 195 people were killed instead of 133. In Victoria, 78 people were killed instead of 45. The lower numbers are not acceptable. We have these stats appearing, and we see it on the nightly news and we hear it on the radio. We are becoming complacent about the death and injury of Australians every day.
I don't want to trivialise any of the debate that goes on in this place but to me that's an emergency. When 44,000 Australians are hospitalised each year, a hundred per day, when up to 1,200 per annum are killed—and I'm not saying we've got a magic wand here. I'm not saying that we can solve all of the errant drivers in the community and all the risk-takers will suddenly go away, but there are genuine, consistent proven methods of harm minimisation and harm reduction. We need to recognise the simple fact that human beings are frail. We're not designed to travel at speed. Anything we can do inside a car or outside a car that minimises a sudden stop is what we should be doing. That's proven and well known all over the world and we should be taking more notice of this particular space.
Vocational Education and Training
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:37): I rise to speak on Australia's vocational education and training sector and the need to overhaul much of the way it operates. The VET sector is complex, with 4,200 registered training organisations delivering services to a massive 4.2 million students each year.
The current regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, was established in 2011 with the aim of addressing concerns that were evident within the VET sector at the time and to provide a better national regulatory framework. Unfortunately, issues in the VET sector have not improved. In fact, they have worsened every year and the concerns evident prior to 2011 still remain unresolved.
Two of the main concerns that remain entrenched eight years later are inconsistent course duration and audit unpredictability. The impact of both is huge. It means that potentially many students each year have been receiving substandard learning from training providers, and that includes both TAFEs and private providers. Poor regulation and inconsistent course duration has led to many VET certificates being looked upon by some employers as having little or no value. Students of these courses are paying good money to study and to receive their VET certificates, only to find out when they try to secure employment that their certificate is worth nothing.
During the inquiry into the future of Australia's aged-care sector workforce, some aged-care training providers delivered certificate courses in as little as four weeks. This is despite the Australian Qualifications Framework guidelines setting a benchmark recommending one year as a minimum and up to two years as the appropriate course length for a certificate III qualification. As one witness told the inquiry, some courses were so worthless that students may as well have cut their qualifications from a Weet-Bix box. The inquiry heard that some employers would turn students away from placements because their entry level skills were so poor, and others actually ignored job applications from students who had graduated from particular RTOs, because they knew the course standards were so inadequate—again, four weeks for some and two years for others, for exactly the same certificate.
Unfortunately, students don't know this is going on. They have no idea. They think that, going to any provider, they're going to receive the same level of qualification and the same degree of study across the nation. They undertake their studies in good faith, hoping for a job at the end, and have absolutely no idea that their chosen training organisation has been effectively blackballed by potential employers. This is a bad investment not only for students but also for taxpayers, because the government is also funding many of these students to complete their VET studies.
Between 2013 and 2017, ASQA conducted seven strategic reviews, and all of these identified issues with course duration being too short. Aged care isn't the only industry facing these problems. It's endemic. A quick scan of the courses provided by registered providers clearly confirms the issues with course duration. For example, there are 92 providers offering the certificate III in early childhood education and care, yet the course duration for early childhood education and care varies from 19 weeks to 60 weeks, depending on the provider. How can there not be a difference in the standard of training that's offered between someone that does it in 19 weeks versus someone who does it in 60 weeks? How is it possible? In fact, only 34 of the 92 registered providers, or just over a third, are delivering the recommended minimum volume of learning, which is 52 weeks for a certificate III course—just over a third! ASQA's 2017 strategic review on course duration looked at 422 training package qualifications and found the majority of providers were not delivering courses which met the recommended minimum volume of learning.
Three recommendations were made by ASQA as a result of the 2017 review. The first was to provide a definition for the amount of supervised training. This was done, but it is still not very clear, as providers still continue to not fully understand the requirement. Next was a requirement for a mandatory amount of training, in particular for training packages in six sectors, including aged care, early childhood, security and construction and safety. This has not been implemented at all. Finally, RTOs were to provide a product disclosure statement—something that's very important for students—for all of their courses, which was to include the amount of training, the volume of training. The PDS was to be provided to students and also submitted to the Australian government's My Skills website for access by employers and potential students. Incredibly, this was also not implemented, and hence there is no register where all RTOs disclose the duration of their courses.
Another independent review was conducted in 2017 by Professor Braithwaite, and many of those recommendations have also not been implemented. Why are we spending money conducting all of these reviews when the recommendations are never actioned? The most recent independent review, conducted by the Hon. Steven Joyce, released in March 2019, made 63 recommendations, but I seriously wonder whether any of these will actually be implemented at all. The Joyce review made some great recommendations, and if all were implemented appropriately they'd make a great dent in repairing our damaged VET sector.
One concern is audit and audit inconsistencies that were previously raised in June 2017. How can an RTO have a course duration approved for 10 weeks by an auditor when the minimum AQF volume of learning is 52 weeks? Another RTO who tries to get the same course approved to be delivered over, say, 26 weeks but using another auditor might be found non-compliant, as they're not meeting the volume of learning that's required. These are crazy inconsistencies that cause financial grief to RTOs who want to do the right thing and be compliant. It just leads to a race to the bottom, when RTOs seeking to deliver courses over 52 weeks, for instance, try to compete with ones that are delivering courses in under 10 weeks.
This domino effect has been happening for the last 10 years in the VET sector and continues. Why is ASQA letting this continue? The domino effect is now so large that only drastic regulatory change will be able to stop it. What is ASQA doing to address audit and auditor inconsistencies? I'd like to share one example provided to me by an RTO consultant. The consultant was asked to validate learning and assessment resources, for an automotive qualification, for a new RTO registration. The consultant found large gaps in the resources and advised the RTO to either rectify the gaps or not use them. The RTO chose to ignore the consultant's advice and went ahead and presented those sources at audit. And guess what? The new RTO registration was approved. The consultant was then part of a re-registration audit that included the same qualification and resources for another RTO, and that RTO was found to be non-compliant as there were gaps in the resources.
Why is ASQA allowing this to happen? Shouldn't all RTOs be using the same learning and assessment resources for the same qualifications? Why is each RTO reinventing the wheel? ASQA should be conducting random audits of providers on a regular basis to ensure that they are implementing compliant training and that graduates are competent. There are other issues that I could get into, and there's a hell of a lot of detail that I have here, but we don't have the time to do this. But the fact that RTOs are only required to keep completed student assessment work for six months—even though RTOs get audited every five to seven years—is a very good example of where the problems are. RTOs should be required to keep electronic copies of all assessment work until they get audited.
Much needs to be done to lift the VET sector, and ASQA needs to step up to the plate. The question is: will this government make it happen?
Vietnamese Community in Australia: Queensland Chapter
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (13:47): I rise to speak on the work of a special group of people in my home state of Queensland who I am honoured to call friends. The Vietnamese Community in Australia, Queensland Chapter is a local community association formed in 1979 to support the 28,000 Vietnamese people who call Queensland home. Last year, members of the Vietnamese community decided to do something to help drought-stricken farmers in western Queensland. Past president of the VCA Viet Tran first got the idea to hold a fundraiser after his friends who run a business at Miles told him about how the drought situation was crippling them. He was shocked to hear how badly people on the land and businesses in town were suffering. And he couldn't just stand by.
He set about organising a drought appeal dinner and dance. He contacted former Senator Ron Boswell—a generous friend and supporter of the community over many years—who put him in touch with David Phelps, chairman of the Western Queensland Drought Appeal. That night, a night I enjoyed, raised $25,480. It was a simple timber pen that sparked the most fundraising of the night, selling for over $2,000. It was hand made, holding special meaning as it was crafted by Vietnam veteran Rodney Hill, a good friend of Queensland's Vietnamese community. All of the money they raised went into drought-affected farmers' hands. Over 100 farming families benefited from the community's generosity. It was a great night, and I must thank Viet for the invitation.
On 9 March this year, Vietnamese community members held a sell-out fundraising event for the PA Research Foundation, with the chairman of the foundation's management committee, Damian Topp. Just this past Sunday, the Vietnamese community in Queensland raised an incredible $35,000 for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Queensland Vietnamese community have a long history of helping people who are less fortunate in our community. Viet Tran says that the desire to help and contribute is born from Australia's generosity to the Vietnamese people who fled here after the Vietnamese war. That's a pretty admirable quality, in my view.
VCA Queensland also contributes in a myriad of non-fundraising-related ways to help make the community a better and more inclusive place to live. Brisbane wouldn't be the same without the annual Lunar New Year and children's festivals organised by the community. The Vietnamese community of Queensland runs the two-night Lunar New Year festival each year, with traditional ceremonies, entertainment, community group information, food stalls and children's rides. Later in the year, they hold the Mid-Autumn Festival, traditionally a time to celebrate the end of the harvesting season in Vietnam, when farmers can relax and enjoy time with their families, especially their children. That's why it's also called the Children's Festival. It's another great night where children are given gifts, and they perform songs and dances and enjoy all the rides and stalls. It's become a great opportunity for people from all different kinds of cultures to get together and enjoy one another's company. It's so great to see the way the Vietnamese community of Queensland invites other ethnic groups in our community to take part in the festivals, joining in the celebrations and often performing their cultural dances on the stage. They are a really wonderfully welcoming and inclusive group.
The Queensland chapter of Vietnamese Community in Australia conduct regular social events for different groups in the area. For instance, later this month they're holding a morning tea for people with disability and their carers, with the motto 'live happily and be active'. It will be a wonderful opportunity for people in similar situations to meet each other and have a fun and entertaining day. They hold rallies each year in support of a free and democratic Vietnam. They also support the fight for democracy in other countries. The weekend before last, they brought together members of the Vietnamese community and other multicultural groups in the Brisbane CBD to peacefully join in a rally in support of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. Each year, they also organise really moving commemorations for the anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the 60,000 brave Australian men and women who served in the Vietnam War. It really is an impressive thing to see such gratitude from our Vietnamese community for Australia's service men and women.
I commend the Queensland chapter of Vietnamese Community in Australia for their absolutely outstanding work in our community. I thank them for their help with the drought in Queensland, and I thank them for welcoming me. In conclusion: cam on Cong Dong Viet Nam da giup do nan han han o Queensland.
Australian Constitution
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:53): Recently, the member for Barton, my colleague in the other place, warned that time is running out if we want to achieve constitutional recognition for First Nations people in this term of parliament. The path to constitutional recognition has already been a long one. It isn't new and it isn't much to ask. The aspirations of First Nations people for fair representation and self-determination have been set down many times—in the 1938 Day of Mourning, the 1963 Yirrkala bark petitions, the 1972 Larrakia petition, the 1988 Barunga Statement and the 2015 Uluru Statement from the Heart. And I won't go through the countless but important inquiries and committees that have been conducted into the basic question of whether First Nations people should be recognised in our founding document.
You can see some of these important documents, such as the Barunga Statement, in this building, under glass, preserved and admired but ultimately ignored by everyone here and those who have gone before us. The Uluru Statement from the Heart cannot, should not and will not end up under glass, another milestone along the path that Australia walks past. The powerful and poignant words of the Uluru statement demand action. They demand action from us here and in the other place. And they demand that we, the lawmakers, put in place a process that means we cannot dismantle and undo what has been agreed. This is what constitutional enshrinement means and why it is so important. It will protect what we put in place so it can't be pulled apart for future political expediency.
We're hearing talk from the current minister and government about a process of co-design, of getting it right, and I fully support this. Constitutional reform must be done in a real partnership with First Nations people around the country. There will be different voices proposing different ways and means, alternative views and ideas; and we must embrace these, not be scared of what will be put forward. First Nations people are not a homogenous mob who all sing from the same songlines—or, in my language, tjukurrpa. This is evident in the journey of the Uluru statement that has been beautifully documented in my comrade Thomas Mayor's book Finding the Heart of the Nation. I'd urge you to read this book, hear the voices and the stories of the people, feel the spirit of struggle and survival and change. It is a uniquely Australian story, sharing the stories of people from all over this wonderful country. And there is a guest appearance by US actor Danny Glover. But it's the stories of First Nations Australians that are shared in this book that deserve to be listened to not just with our ears but with our hearts—people like Rob Roy, from the Gurindji nation in the NT, who tells his story of the land where the Wave Hill walk-off began and the road to land rights; David Collard, a Whadjak Ballardong Noongar man from WA, who tells of his Noongar forefathers who fought for Australia in the First World War and is involved in negotiating the largest native title settlement in this country; and Palawa man Rodney Dillon, from Tasmania, who talks of his pride in being able to repatriate the remains and artefacts of First Nations Tasmanians when he was ATSIC commissioner.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart itself also deserves this heart listening. Kunturu Kulini was the Anangu artists who created the artwork on the statement's canvas. The art on the statement tells its own story. Artist Rene Kulitja, a senior Anangu woman, led the team that painted the tjukurrpa, the songline, that leads into Uluru, the sacred place. It is a beautiful artwork in its own right that tells of a convergence of songlines—much as the Uluru statement itself is a convergence of all the voices that have been and the voices that are now—and it illustrates why a voice, with a capital 'V', is important, not new and not too much to ask.
In the last minute and a bit that I have, I want to quote some beautiful words from Thomas Mayor and his son, which he put in his book. I think it's something that this parliament and indeed all Australians should think about. He said:
'Dad, what will the name of the book be?' he asked. I closed my laptop, turned to him and said, 'What would you call my book?' He smiled a devilish grin and, with practised precision, he put his hand under his armpit and responded with a series of armpit farts. We laughed both childishly. I love kids at this age when the smallest things are still funny. I said him, 'The name of the book will be Finding the Heart of the Nation.' William, my son, looked at me somewhat puzzled and he said, 'Finding the heart of the nation? Where is the heart of the nation?' I pulled my son close, I looked him in the eyes and I smiled. I put my hand on his heart and I said to him, 'William, the heart of the nation is here.'
Read the book, members of parliament, and listen to the Anangu and the people of Australia as we call for the voice to be enshrined.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The time has expired. The time is now for questions without notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. If the government is doing such a good job managing the economy, why has the IMF slashed Australia's economic growth forecast to be only 1.7 per cent this year?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): My answer to this question is that everybody around the world, except perhaps the Australian Labor Party, knows that we are facing significant global economic headwinds and that the International Monetary Fund has again downgraded the global economic growth outlook down to three per cent, the lowest since 2008-09. Australia is a globally focused and globally exposed open trading economy. When the global economy weakens, it has a flow-on impact on the Australian economy. There's something else that everybody, except perhaps the Australian Labor Party, knows—that is, that earlier this year we had a significant flood and we continue to have a severe drought in large parts of regional Australia, which is impacting on our domestic economic growth outlook.
But here's another thing. We have a plan to deal with the challenges we're facing. We have a plan to build a stronger, more resilient economy on the back of lower taxes, more infrastructure, lower energy prices and better access to markets around the world for our exporting businesses. At the last election the Australian people had the opportunity to choose between two alternative plans. They were presented with a high-spending, high-taxing plan, which Australians understood would have weakened our economy and led to higher unemployment and lower wages growth, or our plan for a stronger economy, more jobs and better opportunities for Australians to get ahead. Of course we are facing global economic headwinds. Other economies around the world have actually shrunk in the last quarter, in the June quarter: Germany, the United Kingdom, Singapore—and, indeed, if you look at the growth outlook for the G7 economies in the same report, Australia's economic growth outlook is higher than any of those G7 economies other than the United States. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:02): If the government has the right policy settings then why are Australia's economic downgrades from the IMF four times worse than for advanced economies as a whole?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:02): The Australian economy is into its 29th year of continuous growth. Let me tell you something: Senator Chandler has never experienced anything other than a growing Australian economy.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We have a point of order.
Senator Farrell: The standing orders require that the leader address the Chair. I've noticed that he has his back turned away from you on every occasion. Could you please direct him to address the Chair, in accordance with the standing orders.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm sure Minister Cormann is well aware of the standing orders.
Senator CORMANN: Of course, in addressing you, Madam Deputy President, let me continue to make this point: Senator Chandler has never experienced anything other than a growing Australian economy. What she has never experienced is a Labor surplus. Our government stands by the plan for a stronger economy, which, of course, includes making sure that the Australian government lives within its means, because that is an important part of making sure that our economy is as resilient as possible into the future.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:04): Minister, why do you pretend the economy is strong when the IMF's World economic outlook predicts Australia's growth for this year will be slower than the US, Spain and New Zealand?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): The Australian economy is into its 29th year of continuous growth. We are one of only 10 AAA-rated economies. Of course we are exposed to things like global trade tensions—that is something that everybody understands—and we are implementing a plan to deal with the challenges that we're facing. But let me also make the point again on wages growth. Labor haven't been asking questions on wages growth today. I know why. Because yesterday they finally realised that wages growth in Australia in the last financial year was the highest it's been since 2013-14. Real wages growth is higher than it was when Labor lost government, and indeed it's higher than the long-term 20-year average of 0.6 per cent. If the Labor Party were really interested, they would back our plan for a stronger economy and more jobs. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (14:05): I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, led by a member of the standing committee of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union, Mr Nguyen Minh Triet. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (14:06): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister update the Senate on the global economic challenges outlined by the IMF in their World economic outlook, released last night, and outline how the Australian economy remains resilient and continues to grow?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): I am pleased to report that the fundamentals of the Australian economy remain sound. We are in our 29th year of consecutive economic growth—a record unmatched by any other developed economy. We are one of only 10 economies in the world with an AAA credit rating by all three major credit-rating agencies. We have a record workforce participation rate with a record number of Australians in paid employment, and more than 1.4 million new jobs were created since we came to office. Wages growth in 2018-19 was the strongest since 2013-14. Real wages growth is at 0.7 per cent—stronger than the long-term 20-year average of 0.6 per cent and higher than the 0.4 per cent real growth during Labor's last year in office. Welfare dependency is at its lowest in three decades. But, yes, we are facing a series of headwinds. The IMF has again downgraded global growth forecasts to three per cent—the lowest growth forecast since 2008-09. Australia is a globally focused and globally exposed trading economy. Lower global growth has an inevitable impact on our domestic economy. Then we had the floods in North Queensland—Labor forgot about those—and, of course, we have severe drought impacting on large parts of regional Australia.
On the international front, the IMF's most recent report highlights these challenges, saying:
... rising trade and geopolitical tensions taking a toll on business confidence, investment decisions, and global trade ...
But, unlike the advanced economies of Germany, the United States, Sweden and Singapore, which contracted in the June quarter, the Australian economy continued to grow. In fact, the IMF forecast is that Australia will grow faster than any of the G7 economies except the US over the next two years. The international challenges are a reminder of why we must continue to stick to our balanced and disciplined economic plan. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Antic, your first supplementary?
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (14:08): In the face of these global challenges, can the minister please explain how the government's plan is helping the economy to grow and create jobs?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): That's a very important question. We knew in April, when we delivered the budget, that we were facing these global economic headwinds. We knew about some of the downside risks in the domestic economy, and that is, of course, why we put forward a balanced and disciplined economic plan to support our economy and create jobs by delivering lower taxes. The Senate has helped pass $300 billion of income tax relief, putting more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians and ensuring that hardworking Australians have a higher amount of take-home pay—something the Labor Party clearly is not interested in. The tax cuts are already flowing through. More than $20 billion in tax refunds have been put back into the pockets of hardworking Australians over the past 2½ months. Our plan also backs small and medium sized businesses. We have reduced the corporate tax rate for small and medium sized businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. Indeed, providing— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Antic, a second supplementary?
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (14:10): I'd like to know what the risks are of not sticking to the government's economic plan.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): Let me inform the Senate that, in their great wisdom, the Australian people actually chose to avoid the greatest risk that the Australian economy was facing earlier this year, by voting for the re-election of the Liberal-National government. The Australian people knew that the alternative agenda that was being put forward—a tax-and-spend agenda, which the Labor Party is still pushing today—would have made our economy weaker and would have led to higher unemployment and lower wages over time. They knew that our plan of lower taxes, of an ambitious free trade agenda to help our exporting businesses get access to key markets around the world, of bringing electricity prices down and, indeed, of funding a $100 billion record infrastructure investment pipeline, was the right way for Australia to go in the context of the global economic headwinds and the downside risks in the domestic economy that we knew were coming. (Time expired)
Economy
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:11): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Since the government was re-elected in May, the RBA has downgraded Australia's growth outlook for this year, the OECD has downgraded Australia's growth outlook for this year by twice as much as the downgrades for the G20 as a whole and the IMF has downgraded Australia's growth outlook for this year by four times more than downgrades for advanced economies as a whole. If our growth outlook has changed so substantially, why haven't the government's policies?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): Do you know why? Because, unlike the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, which panicked and blew the budget and weakened the Australian economic and fiscal position to this day compared to what it would have been, we know the importance of sticking to the plan. We will stick to the plan, which we know will build a stronger and more resilient Australian economy into the future. We will not be panicked. We will not be pushed around by Labor, who still can't get used to the fact that the Australian people rejected their high-taxing, high-spending, anti-business, anti-aspiration, socialist agenda at the last election.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McCarthy, a first supplementary?
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:13): I refer to comments made by the IMF that monetary policy cannot be the only game in town. This echoes the repeated calls by the RBA that it cannot do all the heavy lifting solely with monetary policy. Why is the Morrison government stubbornly ignoring the warnings of the RBA and the IMF to support the economy by bringing forward essential infrastructure investments?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): I reject the premise of the question. Monetary policy is not the only game in town. Of course we have a pro-growth budget—a budget with $300 billion worth of income tax relief over the next decade, including $20 billion that was paid out to Australians, returning their money to them over the last 2½ months, and including a $100 billion infrastructure pipeline. Indeed, the Prime Minister has written to all state and territory government premiers and chief ministers to invite them to work with us to bring forward the execution of infrastructure projects where that is a sensible thing to do. We will not do what the Labor Party did and put a billion dollars worth of pink batts into people's roofs, setting houses on fire, to then spend a billion dollars to take them out again. We will not be wasting money on school halls that schools around Australia, by and large, didn't actually need. It was a complete and utter waste of money. We will continue to make sensible decisions in order to continue to build a stronger economy into the— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McCarthy, a second supplementary question?
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:14): Former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello has warned:
… we are running a monetary policy that can only be described as being at emergency levels.
Given that Mr Costello is the second former Liberal Treasurer to describe current interest rates as being at emergency levels, how much longer will it be before the government finally takes action to support the economy?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:15): The Australian government is taking action. The Australian government has a pro-growth budget and we put our pro-growth budget to the Australian people. And do you know what? The Australian people gave it the tick. They made a decision that your agenda was reckless and that our agenda was the better agenda for the economy and for Australian families wanting to get ahead. Former treasurers have the liberty to comment on monetary policy. I leave monetary policy to the Reserve Bank. It is entirely a matter for the Reserve Bank to independently assess what they believe the appropriate monetary policy settings should be. We will continue to make decisions on fiscal policy.
I say to you again: guess what, we were elected at the last election to implement our plan. We will be implementing our plan. We'll continue to make decisions on fiscal policy settings into the future, as appropriate, and we will not take any lectures from the Labor Party, who would have put the Australian economy into a much weaker position as a result of their high-taxing, high-spending agenda, which was rejected by the Australian people. (Time expired)
Drought
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:16): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Senator McKenzie. Do you accept the science and acknowledge that there is a link between climate change and drought?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:16): I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question. It seems that we're actually playing merry-go-rounds here. I've been very, very clear that Australian farmers, the Australian government, those of us who are involved in food and fibre production in this country, accept the science of climate change. That means that when we have the variabilities in the climate that we have right now—it's not unusual for Australia to be in drought. It's unusual for it to be as devastating as this one, but it's not unusual. So, to say that climate change, per se, in the present, has been responsible for all of the droughts that our country has been through over the last two centuries, and previously, is a long bow to draw. But if you're trying to somehow make out that I don't accept the science of climate change, if you search Hansard or any of my public comments you'll be hard-pressed to find that data, because you won't. We accept the science of climate change. We've got a strong package of measures that we took to the federal election to address it, not just in my own portfolio of agriculture but in Angus Taylor's energy portfolio—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young on a point of order.
Senator Hanson-Young: The question was whether the minister accepts the science and acknowledges that there is a link between climate change and drought. I'd like an answer to that question.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do believe the minister is being relevant. She has 45 seconds to answer the question, with more detail if she chooses.
Senator McKENZIE: I don't think I actually could have been clearer. So, why don't I talk about the Future Drought Fund and the $5 billion that we have put into that to actually assist farmers and communities, not today but over the coming years, to address climate change and address their resilience and the resilience of their businesses to the fact that we will be seeing droughts, heatwaves et cetera in this country? That's the reality. That's why we've actually put money—real money—on the table to assist communities and industry, going forward, to be more resilient in the face of climate change.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a first supplementary question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:18): Minister, seeing that you do accept the science on climate change, do you agree then that climate change is exacerbating the drought and that with every tonne of coal dug and burnt it is making conditions worse for our farmers, for our rural communities, and for the Murray-Darling Basin?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:19): When I head out to rural and regional Australia and I am talking to farmers who are suffering from the worst drought our country has seen, one of the things they talk to me about a lot is the cost of electricity. We know that, particularly if you're a dairy farmer, you can have high input costs because of the cost of grain at the moment, because of the drought. You have increased costs of water because of the drought. There are also high input costs when it comes to electricity prices, which is affecting profitability at the end of the line. When input costs go up and you're not getting much more for your product, you know what? You have less money and so you are doing it tough. Dairy farmers are doing it tough, because of the price of electricity, amongst other input costs. Our government is committed to getting that down, and that means supporting reliable supply. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a second supplementary?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:20): Minister, you didn't address the link between climate change and drought. Let me put this to you: your drought policy is to build dams and to pray for rain. Do you accept that, until your government gets a policy on climate change, you've got no policy on drought at all?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:20): What is good on drought and what is good for regional Australia by that mob over there is absolutely obscene. For you to stand up—I could shut down every coal fired power station today, right now, and I tell you what, Sarah: we'd still be in drought. Our farmers would still be doing it tough.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind you to address the senator by her correct title.
Senator McKENZIE: Sorry, Madam Deputy President. It's a bit of a joke, very rich—again, playing politics for Fitzroy, Brunswick and the like, thank you very much.
An opposition senator: Elwood?
Senator McKENZIE: It's 'leafy Elwood'! But for you to come in here and lecture us on how to deal with the drought—that if we switched off all coal-fired power stations in this country today, somehow, miraculously it would rain tomorrow—is just a joke. I believe the science, and I know what science will tell me: that won't happen.
Senator Hanson-Young: Point of order: the only person talking about miracles in this place is the minister, who says, 'We just should pray for rain.'
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's a debating point.
Senator McKENZIE: You know what, Senator Hanson-Young? I'm not the only one praying for rain. There are a lot of people in regional Australia—a lot of people across this country—praying for rain. (Time expired)
Economy
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (14:22): My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister update the Senate on the importance of the government's economic plan to support a targeted, comprehensive and sustainable welfare system?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:22): I thank Senator Smith for his question. We all know that social services touch most Australians at some time in their lives, and invariably it's when they are at their most vulnerable, which is why it is absolutely critical that our social security system remains sustainable so we can continue to provide the support Australians need when they are most in need. We make a promise to Australians that, if they find themselves in particularly difficult circumstances, we will provide them with the support they need, as long as they achieve the eligibility requirements, and they will be supported for as long as they need it. If we make that promise, we will keep that promise. On this side of the chamber we never want to run the risk of running out of money so we aren't in a position to continue to pay the benefits we have promised the Australian public we will.
In case those opposite want some information, at present the bottom 20 per cent of households receive the largest social assistance benefit of anyone. It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that our social security and welfare system is sustainable into the future so we can continue to provide support for those who need it. We believe the social security system is way more detailed than just dealing with the safety net payments. It's about creating jobs—1.4 million jobs since we came into government. It's about creating pathways for those jobs and breaking down the barriers Australians face when they're trying to get a job. We have myriad different programs we are successfully dealing with in the marketplace at the moment to make sure we get people into work. The sustainability of our social security system relies on a strong economy, and that's what we have.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, your first supplementary?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (14:24): Can the minister advise the Senate of Australia's welfare trends?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:24): The proportion of Australians on working-age income support payments has actually fallen to the lowest level in 30 years, at 14.3 per cent. Under this government, there were 230,000 fewer working-age recipients of income support between June 2014 and June 2018. There have been significant decreases in all types of payments over that period, but one that I think is particularly important and worth mentioning in this chamber is a 26.8 per cent reduction in the number of youth allowance payments. That is a massive increase in the number of young Australians who find themselves now in work or studying. Since becoming the minister, I've had the privilege of seeing a number of programs in the workplace actually working in getting young people into work. They're assisting young people to deal with their situation, and it's through strong economic management and the strong economy that we continue to be able to deliver these programs.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, your second supplementary question?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (14:25): Can the minister update the Senate on the long-term sustainability of the welfare system?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:25): While the population in Australia has grown over the last year, the total number of people who rely on welfare has decreased. The data from the soon-to-be-released Priority Investment Approach will actually reveal that there has been a significant reduction in the long-term or lifetime cost of Australia's welfare system—$5.7 trillion over the lifetime as opposed to $6.3 trillion. That's a 10.1 per cent decrease in the amount of taxpayer money that is going to be required to fund our social services system into the future, and that is a saving that will underpin the sustainability of our welfare system not just now but for future generations. We cannot borrow from future generations to pay for the welfare of today. Our strong economy allows us to keep our promise to Australians that, when they fall on hard times, we will be there to support them. It's a promise a strong economy allows. (Time expired)
Hospitals
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:27): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. Recently I had major surgery but had to be readmitted to hospital via the emergency department a few hours after I was discharged. The readmission was due to significant bleeding, which the ED doctors stated was due to me being given the wrong combination of postop drugs. Medical errors are a major cause of death and mental ill health in Australia, with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reporting that hospital-acquired complications in 2017-18 alone occurred in 185,000 people. Can the minister explain what actions the Department of Health is taking to reduce the tide of hospital-acquired complications in Australia, particularly given that it has been around that 180,000 to 190,000 figure for a number of years?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:27): I thank Senator Griff for the question and for providing me with some notice, but can I also acknowledge the personal experience that he has recently had. On behalf of all senators, I warmly welcome you back to the Australian Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Senator CASH: Australia does have, as we know, one of the best health systems in the world. It is supported by dedicated clinicians who work hard to ensure that their patients receive safe and high-quality care. As you have outlined, though, in your personal experience, things can go wrong, and ongoing work is needed to reduce the impact of adverse events on Australian patients and their families. The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care provides support and guidance to clinicians in the management and improvement of hospital-acquired complications. A national list of hospital-acquired complications has been developed by clinicians to support hospitals in monitoring public safety. This list provides a subset of hospital-acquired complications that were prioritised by clinicians based on preventability, patient impact severity, health service impact and clinical priority.
In the National Health Reform Agreement, jurisdictions—because obviously a lot of this is primarily the jurisdiction of the states and territories—have agreed to improve patient outcomes for hospital-acquired complications. To incentivise patient safety and quality through improved patient outcomes, hospital funding is reduced for any episode of admitted acute care where a hospital-acquired complication occurs. This reduced funding is then used by the state or territory governments to deliver safety and quality improvement programs to support clinicians deliver better patient outcomes.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, your first supplementary?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:29): Most errors occur when medical personnel are hungry, angry, late or tired, which is known as the HALT syndrome. The pilot who flew me here from Adelaide has regulated hours. Train and long-distance truck drivers have regulated hours. Why is it that doctors and nurses, in both the public and the private system, do not have maximum safe regulated working hours?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:30): Again, safety and quality in hospitals is primarily the responsibility of states and territories, but certainly the Australian government supports the states and territories in improving hospital quality and safety by funding jointly the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality Care in Health Care. In relation to the incentivisation that I previously referred to, perhaps I should add that the strengthened data collection that it has acquired and the reporting measures to support clinicians in learning and decision-making are key elements of these measures. So there is a lot of work being done and there are mechanisms in place. And the Australian government works with the states and territories to, again, ensure that patients are receiving safe and high-quality care, because ultimately our clinicians are dedicated and they— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, your second supplementary question?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:31): Accountants have international accounting standards. Manufacturers have ISO standards. Will the government commit to developing clinical healthcare standards that govern diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation and that best utilise practice evidence?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:31): Again, in answering that question I would make the point—because I think it is a point we need to reiterate—that Australia has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and it is supported by dedicated clinicians who work hard to ensure that their patients receive safe and high-quality care. In relation to your further question, I'll have to refer that to the minister.
Biosecurity
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister please tell us the benefits to Australian farmers and the wider community of having a strong biosecurity system?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:32): I thank Senator McMahon, a vet, for her question and I know she has a strong interest in a robust border security system. Biosecurity underpins $60 billion worth of our agricultural production and $49 billion worth of agricultural exports, each of which are vital contributors to jobs and growth, particularly in regional and rural Australia. When we get biosecurity breaches—such as the khapra beetle, which could cost Australia $1.47 billion per year over a 20-year period, or the dreaded foot-and-mouth disease, which could absolutely devastate our $16 billion livestock industry—then, for those of us who care about the profitability and resilience of rural and regional Australia and indeed the national economy, having a robust 21st-century biosecurity system is absolutely paramount.
But it's not just about protecting our agricultural industries. It's also about our $6 trillion worth of environmental assets and our animal and human health. One in five jobs in Australia is related to trade, and a tough biosecurity system protects our reputation as a trading nation on the global stage. Our pest- and disease-free status is iconic and unique, and it really underpins the value of so many of the products we export to the world. We will not take a backwards step when it comes to keeping our borders safe from pests and disease. Whether it be the almost-incursion last year of the brown marmorated stink bug—the things I didn't know 140 days ago!—which saw ships turned away, or the outbreak of African swine fever that we've watched across Europe, through South-East Asia and in Timor-Leste just 650 kilometres from Darwin, we will not take a backwards step in keeping our borders secure.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McMahon, your first supplementary?
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:34): Can the minister update the Senate about how the coalition government's economic plan is helping to defend Australia against African swine fever?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:34): Well, when you have a strong economic plan, you can do a whole lot of things—like respond to risks to the economy which would be incurred if we got African swine fever onshore. We are protecting our 2,700 pig producers and the 36,000 Australians who work in the pork industry and making sure that this disease, which kills 80 per cent of the pigs it infects, is kept away from our shores. When you've got the financial resources at your disposal, you can send Suki to Darwin to check the nine direct flights from Dili when you need to. You can actually ramp up the inspections at the border and increase the X-raying of parcels from affected countries. Through those measures, we've been able to detect and stop over 27 tonnes of cooked pork product from affected ASF countries from reaching our shore. That is responsiveness we need.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McMahon, your second supplementary?
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:35): Can the minister advise the Senate on risks to our strong biosecurity system?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:36): Yes, I can talk about the risks. The risks to our biosecurity system are complacency—complacency from industry, complacency from importers, and complacency from travellers and people who think it is okay to bring that home-cooked sausage back for their son and daughter who may be studying at one of our great institutions. They think they won't be able to purchase high-quality food in Australia, so they pack their suitcases full of cooked pork products, quail eggs and maybe some squid, and away they go.
Senator Polley: Squid? How much squid is brought into the country?
Senator McKENZIE: Yes, squid. On the weekend, a woman from Vietnam arrived on our shores with over 10 kilograms of material that was a significant biosecurity breach. She breached our legislation, and we have sent her back to Vietnam—and she won't be the last. (Time expired)
Vocational Education and Training
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. A constituent in my state runs a training organisation employing 16 South Australians. This constituent was recently audited by the Australian Skills Quality Authority for registration. While the audit found high satisfaction from students, and re-registration was granted, my constituent was concerned about how ASQA communicated with him as a small-business owner. The minor issues that the audit identified as needing attention resulted in him receiving a letter threatening to shut him down. When he questioned the commissioner as to why ASQA responds in such a heavy-handed manner, he was told, 'Legislation requires it to be so.' Could the minister advise as to what part of the legislation makes it necessary for ASQA to intimidate and threaten the livelihoods of training providers rather than work with them to identify and rectify any breaches of their onerous and overly bureaucratic compliance systems?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:38): I thank Senator Bernardi for his question and for providing me with some notice of it. I also acknowledge his keen interest in small business, particularly in relation to skills training.
Senator Bernardi, you would be aware that the Morrison government is committed to a strong vocational education and training sector that delivers quality training to students. It is critical that the VET sector is properly regulated so that training providers are delivering training that is appropriate. I want every VET student to have confidence that, when they make a choice to do vocational training, their training provider will deliver the quality training they need to complete their apprenticeship or traineeship and to be job ready. Quality vocational training, as you understand, is critical to our economy, and a VET qualification, again as you would be aware, is just as relevant and just as valuable as a university degree.
As the VET regulator, ASQA is responsible for maintaining this quality and, where warranted under the legislation, taking regulatory action. It is critical that our regulator follows standard regulatory procedures so that training providers are afforded the principles of natural justice and that decisions are supported by sound evidence. Both of the major VET reviews commissioned by the government—the Joyce review and the Braithwaite review—also made it clear that, to improve the quality of training, ASQA requires reform. This includes ASQA having a much stronger guidance and educative role and greater levels of transparency, as you have referred to, around ASQA decision-making. I'm working with the states and territories and stakeholders to implement these recommendations to reform ASQA as a top priority.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, your first supplementary?
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:40): We all know that unscrupulous operators rorted the VET system until changes were made by the government, but the onerous red tape and compliance that is now required is an impediment to small business owners who run training organisations being able to deliver the best and most effective results. What will the government do specifically to support small business operators, like my constituent, to more efficiently deal with their compliance organisations?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:40): Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I have to say: red tape reduction and simplification is a passion of this side of politics. The educative role, though, of ASQA is incredibly important. That's certainly based on the feedback that you have received from your constituents and certainly the feedback that I have received, but also the feedback that state and territory skills ministers have received. We discussed this at our recent skills ministers meeting. The educative role that ASQA is adopting will ensure, and it's deliberately designed to ensure, that small business owners are better supported to understand their compliance obligations, because often it is just a misunderstanding of what they need to do that causes their breach of the legislation. At a recent meeting, as I said, of Commonwealth and state skills ministers—and this included both Labor and coalition ministers—it was unanimously agreed that it was important for ASQA to adopt an educative role. This will be a significant step— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, a second supplementary?
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:41): Governments should be an ally and not an enemy of small business. Will the government commit to ensuring the productive relationship between training providers and the regulator that is essential to the confidence and effectiveness of our skills and training sector rather than the adversarial one experienced by my constituent and other training providers?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:42): Again, Senator Bernardi, this goes directly to what was agreed by the skills ministers at their most recent meeting. It was unanimously agreed that it is so important for ASQA to adopt an educative role and actually work with many of the small RTOs. This is a significant step. It is a significant step which the government believes will benefit every stakeholder in the VET sector, including students, registered training organisations and employers. The government obviously will assist ASQA in improving its regulatory approach. We will support ASQA to ensure that audit decisions are transparent and training providers have the right support to deliver quality training.
Employment
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. The youth unemployment rate in the Southern Highlands and the Shoalhaven in my home state of New South Wales is 20.5 per cent. With the IMF slashing Australia's economic growth forecasts to only 1.7 per cent in 2019 and 2.3 per cent in 2020—it's in the other folder—what is the minister doing to assist young people looking for work in New South Wales?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:43): The one thing that we are doing is ensuring that we keep the fundamentals of the Australian economy strong—that's what we're doing—so that every young Australian has the opportunity for employment. As I explained yesterday, we've got a number of employment programs in place to assist young people to work their way through the system, but if, as the Labor Party projected at the last election, they had imposed $387 billion in new taxes on the Australian economy, where would the Australian economy be today? And how much of that $387 billion in new taxes did they project for youth programs?
They actually voted to remove youth programs that we put in place, so I don't intend to be lectured by the Labor Party with respect to how we manage the Australian economy. We have said that we will continue to maintain our economic settings by keeping the economy strong despite the global headwinds that have been projected by the IMF, and, in those circumstances, by opening up new markets—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ayres?
Senator Ayres: A point of order on relevance: I wonder if the minister might be able to find in his folder one relevant point that he could make in relation to young people in the Southern Highlands and in the Shoalhaven, whose unemployment rate is 20 per cent?
Senator Cormann: On the point of order: the minister was being directly relevant.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, I can't hear you.
Senator Cormann: No amount of condescending commentary will hide the fact that the minister was directly relevant.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, you were being broadly relevant. Part of the question was directly related to the Shoalhaven. I would just remind you of that. Please continue.
Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. The point of order clearly demonstrates that the Labor Party clearly don't understand the link between the economy and the capacity of young Australians—or any Australian for that matter—to get a job. If raising a point of order such as that is their demonstration of how their view relates to the strength of—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann.
Senator Cormann: The interjections are disorderly; this is another level of disorder. Madam Deputy President, I ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to order. She's been harassing the minister, who has been trying to answer the question.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! I need to be able to hear the point of order.
Senator Wong: Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: I will always respond to a call to order by whoever is in the chair. I have to say that I thought I had been very gentle with this minister today. We have one in five young people unemployed in this region, so perhaps he could treat the question with some respect.
Senator Colbeck interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister; I have identified that as a debating point. I remind all senators that the minister does have the right to be heard in silence and that interjections are disorderly. Minister, please continue your response.
Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. The Labor Party can run all the points of order they like. They can make all the personal comments they like. After complaining about people being personal yesterday— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, your first supplementary?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:47): I'll try somewhere else, Madam Deputy President. The youth unemployment rate in outback Queensland is 24 per cent. With the IMF slashing Australia's growth outlook by more than global growth and by four times more than the advanced economies as a whole, what is the minister doing to assist young people looking for work in outback Queensland?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:48): As I said yesterday, the youth unemployment rate is too high. We acknowledge that. But the youth unemployment rate in Australia now is lower than it was when Labor left office. It is one per cent lower than what it was when Labor left office. That's why we put in place programs like the PaTH program I spoke of yesterday, which is to assist young people to get into jobs—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Order! I need to be able to hear Senator Colbeck answer the question. Minister, please continue.
Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. That's why we've put in place projects like the PaTH program—which the Labor Party voted against—to assist young people to get into work. Yesterday they were complaining about the fact that 30 per cent of those people were actually ending up in a job. That's why we have the Transition to Work program, which helps people who drop out of the system to get back into the system. I was talking to some of those young people just this morning to assist them to get them back into the program when they'd fallen through the system. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, your second supplementary.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:49): The youth unemployment rate across the Barossa, Yorke and Mid North in South Australia is 24.7 per cent. What hope do young people have in the Barossa, Yorke and Mid North who are struggling to find a secure and well-paid job when the IMF is predicting a weaker economy in Australia than the US, Spain and New Zealand?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:49): They have a damn sight better prospect of getting a job under the economy the way that we're managing it rather than having an economy that had the imposition of $387 billion of additional taxes. They have a much better chance of getting a job under this government than they did under them. The youth unemployment rate now is one per cent lower than it was when they left office. That's due to the programs that we're putting in place to assist young people to get into jobs and to get employment. By maintaining our strong economic settings we will continue to provide the opportunities. By opening up new trade markets, which we're doing through free trade agreements, we'll provide new opportunities for industry and business to grow jobs, particularly in regional Australia. It would be nice if the Labor Party indicated their support, or otherwise, of those free trade agreements, because it's been one of the things that's assisted this country to grow its economy since we came into government. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (14:50): Before we move to the next question, I advise senators that former senator from South Australia, Mr Grant Chapman, is in the gallery this afternoon.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:51): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. Will the minister update the Senate on what life-changing cancer medications will now be made available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:51): I think that this is without a doubt one of the proudest achievements of the coalition government, and I certainly know it is one of the proudest achievements of the Minister for Health—that is, of course, being able to utilise the benefits of a strong economy to actually put drugs on to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, but in particular life-changing cancer medications. I don't think anybody in here would say that they have not personally been touched by cancer or, alternatively, know someone who is very close to them that has been touched by cancer.
As a result of the dividends of a strong economy, the minister has recently listed medicines to treat lung cancer, lymphoblastic and acute leukaemia and the nausea associated with chemotherapy, which affect more than half a million patients. That's a good dividend. But we are also saving them up to $100,000 per course of treatment. We have also listed Tecentriq and Avastin. This will help a number of patients suffering with certain types of lung cancers. Without the PBS subsidy, access to this life-changing medicine would cost patients more than $11,400 per script or more than $189,100 per course of treatment. We have also extended the listing of Besponsa. This will assist many patients suffering from lymphoblastic and acute leukaemia. Again, without this listing of this drug, patients would pay more than $44,500 per script or more than $122,900 per course of treatment. That is why we have a plan. That is why we will not deviate from our plan, because these are real dividends of a strong economy.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a first supplementary?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:53): To what extent are these listings the consequence of our economic plan?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:53): Again, this is all about the dividends of a strong economy. Since being elected to government in 2013 our government, the coalition government, has invested $10.6 billion to make over 2,200 new or amended medicine listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We're averaging around 31 new or amended listings per month. That now equates to approximately one per day. Many medicines would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and, let's be frank, they would be out of reach for many, but because of our management of the economy we are able to make these listings and patients will pay $40.30, or $6.50 per script. Again, we understand, on this side of the chamber, the benefits of a strong economy, and one of those benefits is being able to list drugs on the PBS.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a second supplementary?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:54): Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to managing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?
Senator Bilyk interjecting—
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:54): I will take Senator Bilyk's interjection. I acknowledge everything Senator Bilyk went through, and it is so fantastic to have you here. In a few weeks time my little sister's anniversary comes up—four years to the day that she lost her life from cancer. The drugs she needed were not on the PBS, so my family did everything we could to ensure that she was able to access those drugs, no matter what the drug was. What did we do in return? We bought some time to create memories. Please, these are the benefits of a strong economy. This is a government that gets out there and delivers for Australians. Access to life-saving drugs should never be made political. We should always deliver for Australians. Access to benefits, including life-changing drugs for cancer, is a dividend of a strong economy.
Employment
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. I refer to the Grattan Institute report Generation gap: ensuring a fair go for younger Australians. Can the minister confirm that half of all households headed by someone younger than 35 have experienced one or more indicators of financial stress, such as skipping a meal or failing to pay a bill on time, in just the last 12 months?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:56): I haven't seen the Grattan Institute report, so I can't confirm the numbers that Senator Bilyk has put to me. I am happy to take the question on notice.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bilyk, a first supplementary?
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:56): The Grattan Institute report found:
… young Australians are in danger of being the first generation in memory to have lower living standards than their parents' generation.
Is this the legacy the minister is leaving young Australians?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:57): I think I actually have seen the report and I've met with the Grattan Institute regarding the report, so I need to correct what I said. The Australian government is extremely concerned to ensure that young Australians have the best opportunities in any circumstance to get into a job and, if they slip through the cracks, to find their way back. That's why the youth portfolio has been re-created, so we can draw together the elements of the Australian economy and the departments that have oversight of areas in the youth portfolio to actually start to work through all of the issues that we can deal with to prevent young people from falling through the cracks in the way that the Grattan Institute report talks about. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bilyk, a second supplementary?
Senator Ayres interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, I can't hear Senator Bilyk ask the question.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:58): Bearing in mind that the minister is not sure whether or not he has seen the report, I will try for another supplementary. Given that the Morrison government has refused to reverse cuts to penalty rates, 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): It's clear that the Labor Party aren't listening to the answers that are given from this side of the chamber. Given that the rate of increase of wages is actually outstripping the long-term average, it's clear that people aren't going backwards; they're actually gaining. With the economy and wages growing at a rate that's higher than the long-term average and higher than the CPI, it is clear that people have the opportunity to progress if they have the opportunity to work in the Australian economy.
Coal Industry
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Can the minister update the Senate on recent progress of the Adani Carmichael mine site?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:59): I'm delighted to update the Senate on the progress that has occurred at the Adani Carmichael mine, especially the progress that has occurred since 18 May. The progress is going well. There are now in fact around 150 people employed at the site at Carmichael in outback Queensland. They're moving dirt. Around 50 different big yellow things—big pieces of earthmoving equipment—are there, and they have already moved a sum total of 100,000 cubic metres of dirt, producing and developing this nation-building project. Construction has started on a five-kilometre dam wall at the site, too.
Yesterday, I thanked the Australian Greens for demonstrating the benefits of natural gas, with their hot air balloon demonstration outside. I've got another thing to thank the Australian Greens for today: if you want more of the progress at the Adani Carmichael mine site, you can just log on to Facebook. Many of the desperate, daily, vain Facebook live streams of anticoal activists are there for you, and you can see in the background all the work happening at the Carmichael site. It's continuing to happen. People have a job. People have hope. People have a future in Central Queensland, thanks to this project.
I also welcome the fact that Adani recently announced they would open an office in my home town of Rockhampton, to build on the headquarters they have in Townsville, where hundreds of people are employed. I look forward to joining the local member, Michelle Landry, who has fought so hard for these projects over the years. When that office is opened in Rockhampton, what a great day it will be for Rocky. It will have an office of a major mining company that employs people not just out at the mine site but also in town in office jobs, giving young people, in particular, in Central Queensland opportunities for a future so they don't have to move away just to get a job.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McDonald, your first supplementary?
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (15:01): What economic opportunities lie ahead for Central and North Queensland now that construction of this project has gone ahead?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:02): I thank Senator McDonald for that question. As I said, this project is going very well. It is not just about this project, though; it is about opening up a new area of wealth generation for our nation. This will be the first coal basin opened in this country in 50 years, and that will mean more investment and more jobs. There are another five potential mines going through various stages of approval. All up, they could deliver 16,000 direct jobs in mining and a massive increase in economic wealth and opportunity for this country. It's summed up best by the people who live there in Central Queensland—people like Kel Appleton, who owns the Grand Hotel in Clermont. He said:
After years of tough times, the Galilee Basin is more than an opportunity for us.
It's our chance to have the things city people take for granted, things like a strong, stable income and hope for your children. People don't realise that if the mines close, so do the towns.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McDonald, a second supplementary?
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (15:03): Are you aware of any recent developments that would undermine the coal industry in Central and North Queensland and put at risk our economy and local jobs?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:03): I thought there had been some other good progress since 18 May, because since that date we have seen some Labor senators and others express a degree of support for the coal industry. Senator Chisholm and my good mate Joel Fitzgibbon in the other place have been saying they might support coal jobs now, given that they nearly lost their jobs six months ago. But now we see that all of that was just talk, because yesterday we saw the Labor Party announce that they will buckle to the activists who are protesting in our streets and declare a climate emergency. Why are they doing this? It's because they want the preferences and the votes of the Greens over the jobs of people in regional areas like Central Queensland. They'll never fight for jobs. They'll never fight for your job. They'll never defend your industries. They will always sell you out just to get a vote.
Senator Cormann: Madam Deputy President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:04): Pursuant to standing order 164 (3) I seek an explanation from the Minister for Defence as to why Order for the Production of Documents No. 91 has not been complied with.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I believe Senator Birmingham has the response. Minister.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:05): Senator Faruqi, I believe you will find that, in relation to the request made to Senator Reynolds, Senator Reynolds as the Minister for Defence did on 10 September provide a response. At that time, Senator Reynolds did indicate that portfolio responsibility for the coordination of the government's response to PFAS contamination and the Australian government's response to the inquiry sits with the Minister for the Environment, who I represent in this place. Senator Faruqi, I thank your office for notice of this today, which is why I had the information and Senator Reynolds was caught by surprise.
The government does recognise that managing PFAS contamination is a complex issue that requires an effective evidence based nationally consistent response, utilising the best available scientific evidence. Our government's action and investment to date in responding to PFAS contamination has been extensive, including regular contact with the communities affected. The government is carefully considering the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around defence bases, and we will respond as soon as possible.
Senator, your order for the production of documents of that government response has been responded to by Senator Reynolds in the context of her letter. I can inform you that that response has not yet been finalised; therefore, we are not in a position to table a response.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:06): I move:
That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.
With all due respect, that just isn't good enough. The committee on PFAS contamination handed down its report almost 12 months ago, and we haven't seen a response to any one of the single recommendations made by that committee. Every day the government delays responding to this report really shows its contempt not only for the Senate but also for the thousands of people who have lived with contamination of their lands and their water, which was actually caused by the government.
It is showing contempt and disrespect for no fewer than 27 primarily regional communities that live near Defence bases—so much for the talk of supporting regional communities by this government—and these communities are across practically every state and territory in Australia. In New South Wales alone there are four sites under active management for PFAS and three more under investigation. Every day that the government denies compensation it drives these people further into the ground financially as well as further damaging their mental and physical health. These communities did nothing wrong. Their land was contaminated by the Department of Defence. But now the community is expected to bear the cost of living with PFAS contamination—not good enough.
The government needs to stop pretending that this is some kind of new issue. It isn't. The United States Environmental Protection Agency wrote to the Australian government 18 years ago—almost two decades—to draw attention to the long-term risks of PFAS to human health and the environment. If you read the committee's report, Minister, you will see the pain that communities are living with. This is really hurting people. People have had to delay their retirement and increase their work hours because of this huge financial impost. The submissions talk about stress, anxiety and depression and even cancers, heart attacks, pregnancy loss and developmental issues with children. People have had to put their lives on hold. They have had to change their whole life plans. This is heartbreaking. People are at a breaking point.
The government needs to take action and it needs to take action now. The inquiry into PFAS contamination was an opportunity for the community to have the government hear them and listen to them, but here we are almost 12 months on and the government still won't release a response. I know it is a complex issue, but usually responses come within three months. This is an urgent issue as well.
Our committee made a wide range of recommendations that would go some way to resolving this issue. What exactly does the government object to? We made recommendations around providing leadership in order to drive effective and transparent responses to PFAS contamination, including ongoing monitoring, identifying gaps in priorities for investigation and remediation, the upscaling of investment in the containment of PFAS plumes and the remediation of contaminated land and water. We called for a coordinator-general to coordinate a national response and provide a national point of contact. These are logical steps to take immediately.
We also recommended legislation and policies to ban nationally the use of long-chain PFAS based firefighting foams and to contain and ultimately destroy these safely, where they still exist. The Australian government should make it a matter of priority to ratify the listing of PFAS under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, noting that Australia is one of the only countries not to have ratified this global agreement. The committee also recommended that the Australian government assist property owners and businesses in affected areas through compensation, including the possibility of buybacks, as well as free, individualised case management and financial counselling services.
I have had the opportunity to meet with two PFAS affected communities again in the last few weeks: in Richmond in Western Sydney and in Williamtown in the Hunter. That is since the Senate passed my order for the production of documents. I was hoping to tell these communities the good news: that the government has finally responded to our report and their needs. Instead, I had to tell them what they already knew: that the government doesn't care about them. The amazing Hawkesbury Environment Network organised a community forum for the community affected by PFAS contamination from the Richmond RAAF base. People are angry. They are really frustrated at the lack of a response from the government. They feel that the government and the Department of Defence aren't listening and taking their concerns seriously. Farmers are being told that their produce is too contaminated for they themselves to consume, so they should sell it onto the market to reduce concentration risk. Why would a producer want to sell produce they know has contaminated levels of PFAS? What kind of advice is this? Another resident questioned whether or not it was safe to give her chicken eggs to her grandchildren. People are confused and scared, and when they talk to the Department of Defence they aren't getting the answers they want or need. Consultation isn't just turning up and listening. It is about acting on what the people are saying.
People want you to use the precautionary principle. People want you to take responsibility for your actions. Take blood testing, for instance. On 30 June, the government closed the voluntary blood-testing program for people who live or work in or have lived or worked in the investigation areas in RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales, Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, Queensland, or RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory, and had potentially been exposed to PFAS. Now, no-one has access to free blood testing to monitor PFAS levels in their blood. Residents told me that they were told that if they wanted their blood monitored for PFAS contamination they would have to shell out hundreds of dollars. How is this acceptable? How is this okay?
At Williamtown, they're staring down their fifth Christmas of dealing with this issue. Drive down Fullerton Cove Road and you'll see on people's properties sign after sign calling out the federal government for ruining people's lives. In the red zone, which the Department of Defence now calls the 'primary management zone', Lindsay Clout told me that frustration is probably a minor word. It's anger now. Outside the RAAF base, on Medowie Road, resident Linden Drysdale put it well, telling me that the government is cruel for leaving Port Stephens residents in limbo for almost a year since the parliamentary committee inquiring into PFAS contamination handed down its report calling for strong action. She said:
The big people - the politicians in Canberra - don't listen to us little people ... We are the ones who are living this nightmare 24/7 and we are not going to stop fighting, even it means till the death.
If you think you can get away with ignoring the people, well, you have another think coming. You have the luxury of sitting here wasting time and obfuscating, but they don't. The community have waited long enough. Communities have suffered long enough. I can conclude only that the government is dragging its heels to avoid facing up to its responsibilities. Stop forcing these communities to pay the cost of the government's mistakes. Comply with the order of the Senate and respond to the really good recommendations of the committee.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:15): I'd like to put Labor's voice on the record here. I was the deputy chair of that committee and I certainly echo the sentiments of Senator Faruqi in the call to the government to respond. All the families in the communities that we held hearings in for this inquiry—from the people of Katherine to Oakey in Queensland to the Newcastle region and here again in Canberra—deserve the respect of this parliament with a response. It is absolutely disgraceful that it is nearly 12 months since there was a response from this government. I remind the parliament of some of the recommendations:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government appoint a Coordinator-General to coordinate the national response to the PFAS contamination issue, supported by an appropriately resourced office.
… … …
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review its existing advice in relation to the human health effects of PFAS exposure, including to acknowledge the potential links to certain medical conditions.
… … …
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as soon as possible, undertake measures to improve participation in the voluntary blood testing program for PFAS. This should include measures to:
increase community awareness about the purpose and importance of the tests, and the associated epidemiological study;
These are critical recommendations that this government has failed to act on, and it has failed to give due respect to all the families and communities who came forward in the sincere hope that our parliament would act. We certainly echo the call for the government to move on this. There is another PFAS subcommittee that will be looking into this going forward, but there will be no credibility if there hasn't been a response from the government.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Economy
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:17): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators McCarthy and Gallagher today relating to the Australian economy.
What we've seen today from the government is more denial that any of the issues facing the Australian economy have anything remotely to do with them. This is despite six years in government and three terms. Whilst we've had a stable finance minister through that time, we've had a number of different Prime Ministers and a number of different treasurers. The evidence is mounting, I think, from experts—not just from Labor but from the RBA, from eminent economists across the country and now from international groups, such as the IMF and the WTO—all raising concerns around growth in advanced economies and more broadly, and here we have a government that is in stubborn denial in its refusal to actually do anything about it.
The latest document from the IMF—and this relates to the questions that Senator McCarthy and I asked today—has rung the alarm bells again around what's happening in the Australian economy. We've seen a very significant downward revision of expected growth. We've got a whole range of other economic indicators that have come out since the election, and the government continues to refuse to take notice of them. We've got the lowest level of growth since the GFC. We've seen the living standards of Australian families in decline. Every day you listen to the radio and there's another report. Whether it be around food insecurity, paying the bills or lack of wages growth, the real impact on families and households across the country is being reported on a daily basis. We have more than 1.9 million Australians who are looking for work or for more work. We have a staggering level of household debt, at 190 per cent of disposable income. Yes, while we've had tax cuts, the evidence to date—and I know the government is placing a lot of emphasis on next quarter's results—would show that people are using that money to pay down debt. They are not spending it to support growth across the economy.
We have business investment contracting, we have consumer confidence declining, consumption growth is weak and productivity is in decline. These are all facts. This is all what is happening, and we have a government that just says nothing about that. They say: 'No matter! The plan we took to the election, despite a lot of these results coming out post the election, is on all track.' The evidence is mounting that that is not the world in which we are living. That is not the world in which Australians are living. They are working harder and they are working longer but they are going backwards. That is the reality. You talk to absolutely anyone and you will not get a story of: 'Oh, it's all great. We are very confident the tax cuts are going to help us.' It's a very different picture.
Childcare costs are going up. Electricity costs are going up. Managing to afford the extras is impossible, because wages aren't growing, costs are increasing and there is uncertainty about what is going to happen in the future, and the government isn't offering any hope or any plan. It's not good enough to rest on what you promised last year or in the lead-up to the election anymore. People want to know that you have your hands on the levers and that you are listening and acknowledging the reality of the world in which they live. That's the job of the government. It's not to be stubborn and point the finger and say, 'It's all Labor's fault that this is happening,' despite our not being in federal government for, unfortunately, some time. That is not what the Australians who even voted for you and those who didn't vote for you want to hear. They want to hear: 'We are aware of the world in which you are living. We are aware of the pressures. This is what we are going to do to assist you to respond to it.' We are not getting that from the government at all.
We accept that you will point the finger at Labor. That's part of the show and the game that we play in this chamber. But, in all fairness, when we have the results that we've seen and the concern that we've seen and the lack of confidence and uncertainty going forward, it's the responsibility of this government to stand up and respond to the current situation—not to point the finger and blame but to accept the data, the evidence and the expert advice that is coming and respond to it. (Time expired)
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (15:23): I rise to take note of the debate, and in particular I imagine that it's probably not unusual to expect that Labor will continually talk but not listen. I think that the Prime Minister and leader of the Senate have said on several occasions that our government has provided certainty, that we are seeing stability. We have a plan that we took to the Australian people, a plan that we put in our budget, a plan that foresaw these challenges that Australia was going to face. We are a government that is steadfastly getting on with implementing that plan.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that Labor is a group who wouldn't understand the challenges of business, who wouldn't understand how serious these challenges are and that these are expected challenges. The IMF has noted that the global economy is in a synchronised slowdown. It has downgraded global growth for 2019 to three per cent. This subdued growth reflects trade and political uncertainty, which is weighing on confidence and investment, and Australia is not immune from these challenges. Nevertheless, we remain well placed to meet these headwinds.
In 2019, Australia is forecast to grow faster than any G7 economy except the US, while Germany, UK and Singapore have had negative economic growth in the June quarter. Jobs growth of 2.5 per cent through the year is stronger than any G7 economy and more than double the OECD average of 0.9 per cent—compared to 0.7 per cent in 2013. We do have a strong budget position that supports our economic resilience. Our budget is back in balance, whereas major advanced economies are averaging deficits of 3.8 per cent, and we're paying down net debt currently around a quarter of the G7 average.
But again, I don't expect that Labor would understand the challenges to business and the economy; it is not in their DNA. In fact, when Senator Ayres rose to ask a question regarding regional unemployment in the great state of Queensland, my home state, I was amazed that he did not understand that unemployment in regional Queensland is a direct result of what happens when you have a Labor government. It is the Labor government in Queensland that has raised the state's debt to a shocking $90 billion. That is just an extraordinary number and a massive noose and weight around the neck of our state. It is a state that is spending more on public servant jobs than ever before. It is a state that provides no certainty to business. It is a state that increasingly regulates for any activity that businesses are trying to undertake. It is a state that constantly moves the goalposts, whether it be on mining projects or—incredibly shockingly in this time of drought—Emu Swamp Dam. That is a dam that is needed urgently, critically, for the Stanthorpe area, yet the state government continues to play games. It is the state Labor government in Queensland that doesn't understand how to get jobs going, how to get certainty going, how to get growth going. I am surprised that Senator Ayres would raise that, because it is my very dear ambition that we remove the state Labor government in Queensland because it is doing no good for our state. We know that that is where uncertainty and bad economic outcomes happen—when businesses are not able to get on with the job of employing people.
The economy is not some beast that magically sits in the corner of the room. It is something that happens when small businesses, big businesses and people take out a mortgage, they take a risk and they employ somebody else. It is hard work. It is the sort of thing where you go to bed with a stone in your stomach. Small businesses are the backbone and the engine room of this country, and yet Labor's policies that they took to the election would have provided increased electricity prices, increased uncertainty, massive new taxes and increased debt for this country. So on those notes, I urge Senator Ayres to work with me to remove the state Labor government in Queensland.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:28): For a party that claims to be big on the idea of individual responsibility, this government is surprisingly resistant to taking responsibility for its own actions. It is always somebody else's fault, never the fault of the people over there. It's the unions, Greta Thunberg, the Public Service, the states, the crossbench; there's always somebody else to blame. Their talking points—helpfully distributed to the entire press gallery and then pretty much to every other person in Australia on Monday—were littered with references to the Labor Party. Six years in, their talking points talk only about the Labor Party and our previous policies, despite the fact we are not in government and have not been in government for six years. So it's no surprise to hear Minister Cormann claim that responsibility for a downgrade to Australia's growth forecast lies somewhere else—pretty much anywhere else except with him and the government. But, unfortunately, that is just not true.
Today the IMF released its World economic outlook, which substantially downgraded its forecast for Australia's economic growth. The report shows the hollowness of the government's claim that they are managing the economy 'just fine, thank you very much'. Instead, the IMF's analysis reinforces what we are seeing in multiple indicators across the economy. It is the slowest economic growth since the GFC 10 years ago. Household debt is at record highs. There are more than two million Australians unemployed or underemployed. Business investment, which people over there are skiting about, is the lowest it has been since the 1990 recession. Now, the government and Minister Cormann would like to blame this on global economic headwinds, but the truth is that that answer does not stack up. Australia's downgrade is larger than that for global growth and four times larger than that for the eurozone and the advanced economies as a whole. Our performance cannot be explained as merely part of the global headwinds, because it is so much worse than the averages in the countries we would normally compare ourselves to.
The coalition have been in power for six years now, and during that time they have overseen a stark deterioration in Australia's economy. This is not something that is happening in the abstract. Ordinary Australians have seen their wages stagnate whilst the cost of living goes up, and it is time for the government to take responsibility. Now, that may not be politically convenient for the government and it may not fit the chief marketer, the Prime Minister, and his clever messaging strategy, but the government cannot pretend any longer that there is no problem. It is time for them to act.
The Prime Minister, in response to all of this, has declared that he's not spooked. How self-obsessed—as though the IMF's announcement was a challenge to him personally rather than a substantive policy challenge for the Australian economy. His response indicates that his intention is to deliver more of the same, which is absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, that is not going to cut it. The Reserve Bank has cut the cash rate five times since 2016 to the current record low. The IMF has called on countries, including Australia, to provide fiscal stimulus and invest in infrastructure to support their economies and improve productivity. According to the IMF, monetary policy cannot be the only game in town and should be coupled with fiscal support where fiscal space is available.
They're far from alone. Serious economic commentators from Deloitte Access through to the Reserve Bank have been calling for fiscal responses to Australia's stagnating growth. And there are plenty of options for the government. They just need to look at the mounting pile of policy concerns—problems that they are willing to ignore at the moment: wages policy, energy policy, an increase to Newstart, infrastructure investment and a plan to stimulate business investment. All those options are on the table but not on the table for this government, which refuses to take responsibility for the economy. They have allowed real problems to develop in the Australian economy during their six years in office, and this is not something that the PM can fix with a pithy slogan or a tricky messaging strategy. He has to do something real. It is time for him to act.
Senator VAN (Victoria) (15:33): I rise to take note of answers in question time that highlight the government's positive plan for a strong economy that creates more jobs for Australia. As Minister Cormann has stated in question time today, the fundamentals of the Australian economy remain sound. We have a AAA credit rating, record labour market participation and welfare dependency at its lowest level in three decades. We are in our 29th consecutive year of economic growth, a record unmatched by any other developed nation.
However, as the minister did outline, we do face headwinds. The IMF World Economic Outlook confirmed that global economic growth has slowed, with 'rising trade and geopolitical tensions' that are 'taking a toll on business confidence, investment decisions and global trade.' IMF global growth forecasts have been downgraded by 0.3 percentage points since their April update to three per cent for 2019, its lowest level since 2008-2009.
While Germany, the United Kingdom, Singapore and other economies experienced negative economic growth in the June quarter, the Australian economy remains resilient and continues to grow. But the international challenges are a stark reminder of why we must stick to our economic plan. It will deliver lower taxes so that Australians can keep more of what they earn. It will create more infrastructure, creating jobs, boosting productivity and returning the budget back to surplus so that we can meet the challenges ahead.
Not only is our economy strong; we are also focused on job creation. Unemployment growth is currently at 2.6 per cent, which is more than twice the OECD average and more than three times what the coalition inherited when we came to government. Labour force figures released last month by the ABS underline the continuing strength of the Australian labour market, with seasonally adjusted employment increasing by 34,700 jobs—exceeding all market expectations—and a record high of almost 13 million jobs in August 2019.
In my maiden speech I said the government must do as much as possible to ensure that there are fewer roadblocks to people being able to work, and I believe this is exactly what the coalition government is doing. A record number of Australians are in work, and the participation rate has never been higher. More than 1.4 million new jobs have been created since we came to office, and around eight out of every 10 new jobs over the past year have been full-time. The coalition government has a plan that supports the creation of more jobs, and small business plays a major role in this plan. They are the major supplier of jobs and the backbone of our economy. I wish more of those opposite had created jobs instead of being political hacks or unionists. According to the small business council report released in July 2019 by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, around 98 per cent of all Australian businesses had 19 or fewer employees. Over 230,000 small businesses have been created since 2013-14, with 75,000 created in 2017-18 alone.
Good economic management runs in the blood of the coalition. We have a track record of delivering red tape savings. Between September 2013 and December 2016, for instance, our cutting-red-tape initiative resulted in $5.8 billion being reported as red tape savings. That means Australians are now investing $5.8 billion in their businesses or spending it elsewhere in the economy. This is good for small business, good for jobs and good for our economy. The government is also helping small business to invest and grow through increasing and expanding the instant asset write-off. This initiative now covers assets up to $30,000 for businesses under $50 million. Those on this side of the chamber are focused on ensuring that our strong economy is working. We're supporting small business— (Time expired)
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (15:38): I want to take note of the answers to questions that were put to Senator Cormann. Isn't it absolutely amazing, when we've got them coming in here—and I really enjoyed listening to the senators before me—talking about 'our priorities' from the list on the Liberal Party talking sheet, because, when you start looking at some the things they put in their talking sheet, you start to see the sorts of rhetoric they use in debate about the serious economic challenges facing the Australian economy. The Prime Minister, in the talking points, said:
… "from our Government you have seen certainty, you have seen stability. You've seen a plan, and a plan that we took to the Australian people, a plan that we put in our Budget, a plan that foresaw the challenges that Australia was going to face, and a Government that's just steadfastly getting on with implementing that plan."
Well, that plan has brought us an economic growth rate that is lower than Greece's. Did you think that you could possibly turn it around by putting out a rhetoric sheet, when you've had the economy growing at a rate that is less than Greece's? Greece has been in a depression for seven years and now has a higher growth rate than Australia! Look at the growth, and the slower growth rate, that we have compared to the US, Spain and New Zealand.
I like a bit of competition with the Kiwis; I've got a brother-in-law who's a Kiwi. But they're beating you. And there is a big difference: they've got a Labor government, so that's the first reason they've got some good thought about how to move their economy forward. But unfortunately this government doesn't have a plan. They have a plan about talking about a plan they don't have. Their plan—if it exists—doesn't rate with the RBA; they've downgraded growth. It doesn't rate with the OECD; they've downgraded growth again for Australia. It doesn't work for the IMF; they've downgraded growth for Australia as well. That's the trifecta.
What's clear is that we have a situation in this country where people are under incredible stress because of the mismanagement by this government of this economy and their failure to turn around and recognise the seriousness of the challenges that we're facing. The Australian public are fully aware, but the government doesn't seem to be. Unemployment in Australia is now at 5.3 per cent. Youth unemployment in Australia is now twice that—a whopping 11.7 per cent, and in some regional areas it is as high as 20 per cent. Underemployment is now a disgraceful 8.5 per cent, and youth underemployment is at 20.9 per cent. But don't worry: they have a plan. Well, the plan's not working. The OECD's telling you; the RBA's been telling you for months; and of course the IMF has blown the whistle on you about the fact that you've failed to act in a way that is economically responsible.
What's clear about the future in this plan from the government—among the things they put in their talking points for 14 October was lower taxes, so you can keep more of what you earn. Well, bring the tax cuts forward. We need to actually turn around and stimulate the economy. Their second point was: reduce the cost of doing business. Energy—well, there's no plan there. Deregulation, finance—well, we've seen the banking royal commission, and we're still waiting for the full plan, and there's no plan there. And this is the one I find absolutely disgraceful: getting paid on time. This is point 2 of their two points of their big plan.
You only have to talk to small business. Prior to being here I had the pleasure of representing the largest small-business organisation in this country—probably larger than all the other small-business organisations put together, representing owner-drivers. Regarding getting paid on time, the only people who have turned around and stopped payment on time are this government. The average payment time is 240 days for trucking companies in various parts of the economy. It's averaging 90 to 120 days in other parts of the economy. The time for waiting to be paid is blowing out. Yet this was the government—along with the previous, Turnbull, government—that turned around and got rid of payment time of 30 days for owner-drivers. (Time expired)
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:43): I rise to speak on this motion to take note of answers because I'm struck by the lack of economic literacy of those who stick to their talking points without any semblance of self-examination as to what their contribution has been to the lack of economic confidence in the broader community. There is no doubt about that. But it is because of the political circus that has been fuelled by an opposition that has always sought to get its own way—a previously rudderless or lacklustre leadership in the Liberal Party and a motley bunch of crossbenchers. And when Senator Gallagher said that she's not going to point the finger, I thought, someone has to point the finger; someone has to say who is responsible for this. They've been warned time and time again that every time they whack more borrowed money into funding additional child care, the cost of child care goes up. Do not now complain that it's unaffordable. Do not come to us and say that the answer to the economic problems in this country is for the government to borrow more money to boost the wages of public servants or the unemployed.
You can get the same result by minimising the size of government, by cutting taxes. But why can't we cut taxes in this country? Because the socialists on the other side of the chamber will not allow it to happen. These self-same socialists are now trumpeting Greece and Spain as somehow the saviours of the economic growth of the world. These were bankrupt economies that had to be bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Do you know why? Because in Greece they had cradle to grave welfare where people would retire at 36 for 40 or 50 years on a fully funded state pension. In Spain the renewable experiment they've foisted upon us bankrupted the country. In Spain such was the extent of the subsidies for renewable energy, solar energy, that they would pay to run diesel generators to put lights on at night to generate supposedly solar power. This is the utopian ideal that we are getting peddled by those who now don't want to point the finger but will celebrate that these countries go from negative growth—where they are absolutely bankrupt—to suddenly having a glimmer of light, because there is some fiscal responsibility applied to them as the great panacea and the great model for the rest of us.
The buck has to stop somewhere. The buck has to stop with some critical self-examination of the policies that have been put forward by the Labor Party, by the Greens party and by some of the more left-wing subsidists in the Liberal Party over the last decade or so.
Senator McAllister made the point that the Liberal Party, and the coalition, is meant to be the party of individual responsibility. Well, so they are. People can make determinations about what to do with their money and they will act in their best interests. What are they deciding now? Their best interest is to actually pay down debt, because they know there are low interest rates. It is a buffer for future problems. It is savings for a rainy day. Any normal-minded person would say, 'If it's good for a household to pay down debt, and if there are demands for states to pay down debt, wouldn't it be advantageous for a federal government or a Commonwealth government to actually pay down debt rather than just continue to rack it up at the tune of $50 billion a year like it started under the Rudd-Gillard governments?'
It was only a decade or so ago we had zero national debt in this country. Now all of a sudden we are on the hook to the tune of $550 billion. The first glimmer of hope is the fact that the Morrison-Frydenberg government is going to deliver a very modest surplus this year and those on the other side want to hijack that and take that away. They are robbing from the future to pay for the excesses of today. It is time to say enough is enough. We've got to get government to live within its means. We have to take our medicine for the failures of this place over the last decade or so, because every time someone says the answer to a bad government program is to pump more money into it, we're stealing from our children and our grandchildren. We are stealing from the future. I've lost track of the number of times everyone has said, 'I can't support this program, because there is not enough money going into it.' Measure the effects of what you have delivered. You've delivered uncertainty to a community. You've delivered debt levels that are unprecedented. You've delivered lower literacy and numeracy rates than we've ever seen. You've delivered the most expensive electricity that we've had in the history of this country. It's all because they will not deal with the reality of circumstances.
Question agreed to.
Drought
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:48): I seek leave to give a reflection on the answers given to me by Senator McKenzie.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for three minutes.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator McKenzie) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to climate change and drought.
Yesterday I was in this place and I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, about the impact of drought on farming communities and the fact that building dams was not a policy that would help the struggling farmers today or, indeed, help the river system in the months and years to come.
Today I asked the minister representing the minister for water and drought, Senator McKenzie, whether this government will finally accept the link between climate change and drought. Yet we did not get a straight answer. What we have seen is that this government continues to have its head buried in the sand when it comes to climate change, when it comes to drought and when it comes to the emergency that we are in. The only thing this government wants to do is tell people, 'Pray for rain, and we'll build some dams so that next time there's a drought we might be okay.' It is not a plan for the future and it is not a plan for struggling farmers and our struggling river system today.
The reason we are in a crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin is threefold: corporate greed, people taking too much water out of the system and leaving none for anybody else; cotton, because we shouldn't be spending all of our water making cotton seasons happen all year round, every year, in the middle of a drying climate; and, of course, climate change. What is making climate change worse is coal—coal, coal, coal. So if you want to know why the Murray-Darling Basin is so stuffed, it's climate change, it's coal and it's corporate greed. These are the reasons our farmers are struggling, and this government has its head in the sand. They've got no idea what to do because they have no plan for dealing with climate change. And if you don't have a plan for climate change, you don't have a plan for managing the drought. That's the truth.
It's just unthinkable that this government continues to pretend to farming communities and the Australian community more broadly that there is nothing they can do. They are turning a blind eye to the obvious. The science is telling us very clearly that we have to get serious about reducing carbon pollution—get out of coal—if we are to do anything about reducing the impact of dangerous global warming. That means, if we want to stop future droughts, not just building dams but actually stopping climate change; that is what will help.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:52): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice of my intention that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion proposing the disallowance of various legislative instruments as set out in the list circulated in the chamber.
Presentation
Senator Bilyk to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) International Brain Tumour Awareness Week will be held from 26 October to 2 November 2019,
(ii) the five-year survival rate for malignant brain tumours, known as brain cancer, is still only 22%,
(iii) while not as deadly as brain cancer, benign tumours in certain areas of the brain can still be life-threatening and may require urgent treatment, and
(iv) even surviving a brain tumour, patients can suffer ongoing symptoms, including brain damage and paralysis;
(b) congratulates the Brain Tumour Alliance Australian and the International Brain Tumour Alliance for their ongoing advocacy for brain tumour patients; and
(c) urges the Australian Government to take whatever action is necessary to improve brain cancer and tumour survival. (general business notice of motion no. 195)
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting—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) it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to obtain and retain the basic means to live and support themselves because of:
(A) an insufficient youth allowance which hinders their ability to enter meaningful employment, complete further practical or academic study and/or explore entrepreneurship, while meeting the rising costs of living,
(B) a shrinking job market and decreasing employment opportunities, and
(C) the multinational corporations which currently monopolise markets and prevent aspiring young entrepreneurs from breaking into the market,
(iii) the 2019 Grattan Institute report, Generation gap: ensuring a fair go for younger Australians, found that:
(A) there is a growing wealth gap which is failing young people,
(B) youth unemployment is at 13% and rising, and is far higher than that of the mean national unemployment rate of around 5%, and
(C) youth underemployment is on the rise, growing from 12% to 20% between 2006 and 2016, and
(iv) ensuring that young people can access the supports and services they need to be able to access a quality education, put food on the table, have a safe place to sleep every night and still enjoy a good life is ultimately an investment in the future; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) reinstate federal funding for the national peak advocacy body for young people,
(ii) reinstate a separate Federal Minister for Youth Affairs so that young people have a dedicated representative in the Federal Parliament, and
(iii) work with young people and their peak representative bodies to develop a national strategy to address increasing generational inequality, and ensure that young people can access the supports and services they need to live a good life. (general business notice of motion no. 196)
Senator McCarthy to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Anangu traditional owners have been working with the tourism industry and national parks to develop visitor attraction strategies after the Uluru climb closes on 26 October 2019, and
(ii) the 2017 decision to close the climb this year was in line with the agreed process in the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Management Plan 2010-2020; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to:
(i) support Anangu in their determination to protect their sites and tjukurpa,
(ii) support Anangu in their aspirations to share Uluru, their culture and their country with visitors who want to learn more about this significant place, and
(iii) continue to support strategies and investment that place culture and environment at the centre of the Uluru Kata Tjuta visitor experience. (general business notice of motion no. 197)
Senator Dean Smith to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) recognises the significance of the discovery of gold in the state of Western Australia;
(b) notes the following achievements for Western Australia's gold mining and exploration sector:
(i) Western Australia continued to lead gold exploration activity in 2018-19, accounting for 70% ($673 million) of Australia's total gold exploration expenditure,
(ii) Western Australia accounted for 212 tonnes (67%) of Australia's total gold production in 2018-19,
(iii) gold sales by value increased 5% to almost $12 billion in 2018-19,
(iv) the gold price broke through the AU$2000 barrier in June, averaged almost AU$2,220 in September 2019, setting a new record high, and
(v) the gold mining and exploration sector directly employed over 31,000 people, and contributed over $291 million in royalties to Western Australia in 2018-19; and
(c) acknowledges that:
(i) Phillip (Phil) Saunders and Adam Johns discovered gold in the tributaries of the Ord River in 1882,
(ii) Edward T. Hardman played a key role in discovery of East Kimberley goldfields (Elvire River near Halls Creek) in 1884, and
(iii) Charles Hall and John Slattery made the first discovery of payable gold in Halls Creek, Western Australia on 14 July 1885, triggering the Kimberley gold rush. (general business notice of motion no. 198)
Senators Askew and Henderson to move on the next day of sitting—That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report:
Investigations into a possible cancer cluster on the Bellarine Peninsula, Victoria, with particular reference to:
(a) the health concerns of local residents;
(b) the incidence of cancer cases in the area, and any possible environmental or other contributing factors;
(c) the evidence, approach and outcomes concerning the Victorian Chief Health Officer's investigation of cancer rates on the Bellarine Peninsula; and
(d) any other related matter.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting—That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the third sitting day in March 2020:
The performance of Australia's dairy industry and the profitability of Australian dairy farmers since deregulation in 2000, with particular reference to:
(a) the ability of Dairy Australia to act independently and support the best interests of both farmers and processors;
(b) the accuracy of statistical data collected by Dairy Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics;
(c) the funding of Dairy Australia and the extent of its consultation and engagement on the expenditure of levies revenue;
(d) alternative approaches to supporting a viable dairy sector;
(e) the introduction of a mandatory industry code of practice; and
(f) any related matters.
Senator Keneally to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) it can currently take up to two years for police or security agencies to access data held in the United States on platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook, in relation to serious crime investigations, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime,
(ii) the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act), enacted in March 2018 by the United States Congress, empowers the United States Government to enter into agreements with foreign governments to radically speed up the time it takes foreign police and security agencies to access electronic data held in the US for the purpose of investigating serious crimes,
(iii) the CLOUD Act includes a number of requirements that must be satisfied before the United States Government can enter into an agreement with a foreign government, including that the foreign government's domestic laws must afford 'robust substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties in light of the data collection and activities of the foreign government that will be subject to the agreement',
(iv) on 3 October 2019, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States announced they had successfully concluded their negotiations and entered into an agreement under the CLOUD Act, meaning UK police and security agencies will be able to access data held in the United States for serious crime investigations substantially faster Australian police and security agencies,
(v) unlike the UK Government, which has already concluded its CLOUD Act negotiations, the Australian Government has only just started its negotiations with the United States,
(vi) there are widespread concerns that Australia's encryption laws, passed last year by the Morrison Government, do not provide 'robust substantive and procedural protections' as required by the CLOUD Act,
(vii) amendments presented to the Senate last year, but rejected by the Government, could have provided appropriate 'robust substantive and procedural protections',
(viii) less than 24 hours after the announcement that Australia-United States CLOUD Act negotiations had begun on 7 October 2019, the Chairman of the United States House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, sent a letter to the Minister for Home Affairs expressing grave concerns about the absence of 'robust substantive and procedural protections' in the Australian Government's encryption laws,
(ix) the speed with which Congressman Nadler, whose committee plays a key role in approving any potential agreement between the United States and Australia, wrote his letter suggests that Australia may be a long way off from being able to access electronic data held in the United States to investigate serious crimes, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime, and
(x) without an agreement between the United States and Australia under the CLOUD Act, victims of vile crimes, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime, will continue to have to wait for up to two years for police to even be able to get a good start on their case;
(b) condemns:
(i) the Australian Government for not being as proactive as the UK Government has been in securing a CLOUD Act agreement with the United States, and
(ii) the Australian Government for isolating Australian police and security agencies from potential resources that could reduce wait times to get access to critical data, held in the United States, to aid in the investigation of serious crimes, such as terrorism, violent crime, paedophilia and cybercrime from two years to just a few days; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to work productively with all parties in the Senate to ensure Australia's encryption legislation can be amended to address any and all obstacles in the way of securing the best outcome for Australian police and security agencies, and the Australian people. (general business notice of motion no. 199)
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to immediately put in place a permanent Rural Hardship Education Fund to assist geographically isolated students and their families with educational expenses during times of rural hardship to ensure their schooling can continue unchanged. (general business notice of motion no. 200)
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997, the Export Control Act 1982 and the proposed Export Control Act 2018 to restrict the long haul export of live sheep and lambs during the northern hemisphere summer months of July, August or September in a five year transitional period, or at any time after that period, where the voyage is by ship and of duration exceeding 10 days, and where a place in that voyage is either the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea (regardless of whether it is the final destination). (general business notice of motion no. 201)
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Federal Government is currently in the process of developing the National Alcohol Strategy 2018-2026 (NAS) which aims to reduce harmful alcohol consumption, including from binge drinking and disease or injury caused by a lifetime of drinking,
(ii) alcohol contributes to disease such as cancer and preventable harm, including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and is estimated to be responsible for nearly 6000 deaths in Australia each year, and
(iii) the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum (MDAF) had committed to finalising the NAS by the end of 2018, but it has not met since June 2018, and the strategy is still unfinished;
(b) further notes:
(i) the concern from health groups and specialists who developed and consulted on the initial draft of the NAS, that the revised draft has been watered down following involvement of the alcohol industry,
(ii) reports that the reason the revised draft of the NAS has not been finalised is because of state and territory concerns about the alcohol industry's interference in a public health strategy, and
(iii) that an analysis by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education shows the revised draft deletes a safeguard that the alcohol industry will not be eligible for membership of the NAS Reference Group, which will guide implementation, monitor progress and evaluate the strategy, and it also deletes the statement that 'Australia does not support any ongoing role for industry in setting or developing national alcohol policy'; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to remove the pro-industry changes that were made to the NAS, and reintroduce the safeguards against alcohol industry involvement that were deleted. (general business notice of motion no. 202)
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting—That—
(a) on Thursday, 17 October 2019, the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, standing in the name of Senator Patrick for that day, be called on for debate by no later than 3pm; and
(b) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (a) is not concluded at 4 pm, the questions on the unresolved motion shall then be put.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) this week is Anti-Poverty Week 2019,
(ii) nearly one third of women over 65 live in poverty, with many experiencing or at risk of homelessness,
(iii) according to the HILDA Statistical Report 2019, single elderly women are the lowest income family group and women aged over 65, were more likely than not to have experienced poverty in the previous 10 years,
(iv) the effects of lower wages and time out of the workforce compound across women's working lives – on average, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men, and almost 35% of women aged between 60 and 65, have no superannuation at all, and
(v) approximately 23% of Newstart recipients are aged between 55 and 64; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to help reduce the poverty rate of older women in Australia by:
(i) immediately increasing Newstart and related payments, and
(ii) investing in social housing, including transitional and crisis housing, and
(iii) taking action to close the gender retirement income gap. (general business notice of motion no. 203)
Senator Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate agrees that, given we are in a climate emergency, no new thermal coal mines should be opened. (general business notice of motion no. 204)
Senators Siewert and Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Fitzroy and Margaret Rivers in Western Australia are home to the critically-endangered Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis pristis) that can grow up to seven metres long,
(ii) in December 2018, 46 Freshwater Sawfish died in pools connected to Snake Creek, a tributary of the Fitzroy River,
(iii) the Western Australian Government is investigating whether there is a connection between these deaths and the extraction of billions of litres of water out of Snake Creek on Ms Gina Rinehart's Liveringa pastoral lease,
(iv) Ms Rinehart and others have proposed an irrigation scheme that would take a further 325 billion litres of water per annum out of the Fitzroy River, and
(v) 16 October 2019, is World Sawfish Day; and
(b) calls on the Western Australian Government to ensure the protection of the Fitzroy River and its population of critically-endangered Sawfish. (general business notice of motion no. 205)
Senator Lambie to move on the next day of sitting—
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2019:
The proposed Indonesia, Hong Kong and Peru trade deals, with particular reference to the impact of the agreements on Australia's:
(a) economy and trade;
(b) domestic labour market testing obligations and laws regarding wages, conditions and entitlements of Australian workers and temporary work visa holders;
(c) investment; and
(d) social, cultural and environmental policies.
(2) That, in conducting the inquiry, the committee shall review the agreement to ensure it is in Australia's national interest, and have regard to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the proposed agreements.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) recognises that it is Anti-Poverty Week 2019, and today marks the United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty;
(b) notes that raising the rate of Newstart and Youth Allowance is one of the most effective measures the Government can undertake to reduce the rate of poverty in Australia; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to immediately increase the rate of Newstart and Youth Allowance. (general business notice of motion no. 206)
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges this is Anti-Poverty Week 2019;
(b) notes that the Anglicare Jobs Availability Snapshot 2019 found that:
(i) one in seven jobseekers have barriers to work such as age, disability and education level,
(ii) it is taking people an average of five years to find work,
(iii) there are at least five jobseekers who do not have qualifications or work experience competing for each job at their skill level, and
(iv) there are 1 million people who are underemployed in Australia;
(c) notes that there are over 200,000 people living on Newstart who are sick or disabled;
(d) acknowledges that poverty is a barrier to employment, and there are many unemployed and underemployed people in Australia struggling to get by on the current rate of Newstart; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to adequately support people to find employment by immediately increasing Newstart and Youth Allowance. (general business notice of motion no. 207)
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges this is Anti-Poverty Week 2019;
(b) notes that:
(i) more than one-in-ten Newstart recipients are First Nations peoples, and one-in-five Youth Allowance recipients are First Nations peoples,
(ii) First Nations peoples living in remote areas of Australia face significantly higher costs of living, and
(iii) research by the ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research estimates the poverty rate for First Nations peoples is around 31%, with poverty rates stagnating in regional areas and rising in remote areas;
(c) acknowledges that First Nations peoples are disengaging with the social security system because of the onerous and punitive reporting requirements attached to income support payments; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to act to reduce poverty rates for First Nations peoples by immediately increasing Newstart and Youth Allowance. (general business notice of motion no. 208)
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting—
(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.
(2) That the second reading of the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 be restored to the Notice Paper. (general business notice of motion no. 209)
7537581d-8c72-41b0-86c1-df15dd7a78a6Intention to withdraw: The Chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (Senator Fierravanti-Wells), pursuant to standing order 78, gave notice of her intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion standing in her name as follows:
Nos 1 and 3 for seven sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the following instruments:
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Timeshift Applications and Other Measures) Regulations 2019 [F2019L00357]
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties) Regulations 2019 [F2019L00352]
Nos 1 and 2 for nine sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the following instruments:
Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Services Table) Regulations 2019
[F2019L00563]
Migration Amendment (New Skilled Regional Visas) Regulations 2019
[F2019L00578]
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Patrick for today, proposing the disallowance of the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, postponed till 17 October 2019.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:52): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senators.
BILLS
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (New Commissioner Functions) Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator DUNIAM ( Tasmania — Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism ) ( 15:53 ): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to aged care and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator DUNIAM: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:54): I present the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Today I am proud to introduce the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (New Commissioner Functions) Bill 2019, which builds on this Government's commitment to ensure older Australians in the aged care system are better cared for. This Bill gives additional regulatory functions and powers to the independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, fulfilling the Government's 2018-19 Budget announcement.
The Government established the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on 1 January 2019, bringing together the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. The Commission's initial responsibilities for complaints resolution and the accreditation, assessment and monitoring of aged care services will now be expanded.
From 1 January 2020, the Commissioner will be responsible for:
the approval of aged care providers, regardless of whether the care they provide is delivered in a residential aged care home or in an individual's home;
compliance and enforcement actions in relation to the care being provided to care recipients; and
the administration of the responsibilities of approved providers to report assaults.
These additional functions build on the existing functions of the
Commissioner and ensure the Commission is the primary point of contact for Senior Australians and their families to raise concerns and ask questions about the quality of their aged care, knowing the Commission is empowered to respond.
The transfer of these regulatory functions from the Secretary of the Department of Health to the Commissioner is a fundamental strengthening of the regulation of the aged care sector.
The Commissioner will now have the ability to approve providers' entry into aged care, stronger powers to monitor the quality of the care they provide and a broader remit to oversee and enforce their compliance with all aged care responsibilities.
If a provider is not providing the care required and expected of them, the Commissioner will be empowered to impose sanctions to protect care recipients, including revoking their approval to participate in the Commonwealth subsidised market.
The amendments in the Bill also streamline the process for the Commissioner to impose sanctions on aged care providers found not to be complying with their responsibilities and failing to make a sufficient response to the identified non-compliance.
Providers will continue to be expected to cooperate with the Commission, and officers of the Commission will be able to seek a warrant in order to exercise their powers where providers fail to cooperate.
The Commission will also have additional powers to seek information from providers related to their suitability to provide aged care and how they look after the funds that care recipients contribute to the cost of their care.
At the same time, the Bill ensures the Secretary and the Department have the necessary powers to continue to administer funding arrangements which will remain under the Aged Care Act from 1 January 2020.
Although the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety is still underway and we cannot anticipate any recommendations that will come from it, these reforms provide a basis upon which to consider them and demonstrate that the Government is listening to concerns being raised.
These reforms are the second stage of our direct response to Ms Kate Carrell and Professor Ron Paterson's findings and recommendations of the Review of National Aged Care Regulatory Process undertaken in 2017.
The first stage occurred on 1 January this year with the establishment of the Commission and appointment of Ms Janet Anderson as Commissioner. I would like to thank Janet for the work she and her team have done this year to protect and enhance the safety, health, well-being and quality of life of people receiving aged care by implementing the Government's reforms, and building the new Commission.
But there is more to do. There continue to be failures of care and older Australians deserve to be safe and well looked after in their homes, whether that's in a residential aged care facility or their own home. We should rightfully expect that those responsible for failures will be held to account.
This Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to continue to strengthen the aged care regulatory framework in response to these challenges.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Abortion
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:54): I, and also on behalf of Senator Waters, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the New South Wales Parliament passed a Bill to decriminalise abortion on 25 September 2019; and
(b) congratulates and thanks all the women and activists who have worked tirelessly for decades to achieve this important reform.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: As this motion involves a matter of conscience, in line with longstanding practice, government senators are free to vote in accordance with their own conscience on the substantive motion.
Climate Change
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:01): At the request of Senators McAllister and Pratt, I move:
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.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government is taking real and meaningful action to reduce Australia's impact on the environment. The government is on track to meet and beat our 2020 target, and we have a strong plan to achieve our 2030 target. Labor is desperately trying to score cheap political points by declaring a climate emergency, yet it refuses to commit to a single climate policy it took to the election. This shows what an empty gesture Labor's declaration is, intended to cover for their total absence of policy. Labor's hollow symbolism will not deliver a single tonne of emissions reduction.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: The Labor Party received a thumping from regional Queenslanders at the last federal election. It came as quite the shock to Labor that coal and mining workers were unwilling to sacrifice their jobs and their community to virtue-signalling to the United Nations about climate change. Since the election, Labor powerbrokers have been claiming that they have listened and learnt their lesson from the election. But today we see that Labor are trying to out-green the socialist Greens on pointless climate motions. Labor needs to decide if they would truly support the coal and mining workers by rejecting the claim that CO2 can affect the global climate or follow the socialist Greens down the garden path and play with the carbon dioxide fairies. One Nation is very pleased to see that Labor did, in fact, not learn from their election defeat, as this will only increase our vote at the next election as coal and mining workers put their support behind the only party who puts their jobs and Australia first, One Nation.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:03): I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 193.
Leave granted.
Senator DI NATALE: I move the amendment in my name:
(1) After paragraph (b), add paragraph (c):
(c) declares an environment and climate emergency.
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Leave not granted.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale, an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 193, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:11): I'll now move back to the original motion. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 193, standing in the names of Senators McAllister and Pratt, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:12]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
National Parks
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:15): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia's national parks are at risk of being privatised, to the exclusion of everyday Australians, against environmental interests, and in favour of high-end tourists for private profit,
(ii) a private corporation, The Australian Walking Company, is planning a luxury private development on fragile coastal sites in the wild and unspoilt parts of Flinders Chase National Park on Kangaroo Island in South Australia – South Australian taxpayers have foot a $830,000 bill for this project despite not being consulted,
(iii) the same private company has already developed parts of Cradle Mountain in Tasmania, and other locations across Australia, including Uluru and Hinchinbrook Island, are under threat, and
(iv) the applications for these private developments lack transparency and proper scrutiny; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to honour the century-old Australian ethos that national parks should be for the people, and not for private 'high-end' resorts which exclude ordinary Australians and devalue prime park qualities.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:15): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: We oppose this. The Greens in Tasmania led the war against the forestry industry for decades in the name of conservation. This war against a sustainable forestry industry has seen a decline in the industry. This has included job losses and seen communities struggle to survive. The socialist Greens argued that a new tourism boom would spring up in its place, enabling Australians and international visitors to visit the incredible natural Tasmanian wilderness. So, now that the free market is looking to invest in the Greens' new tourism industry, what do they want? They want to change the rules, because their intent was never to transition from forestry to tourism but to lock it up and lock out everyone from enjoying nature. So what do high-end resorts bring? They bring high-end, wealthy customers who will help create jobs and thriving communities with high-end local services and products. Not everyone likes a rugged camping holiday or a rustic bungalow. Some like to have some modern comforts. Turning away these customers is an idea that could be dreamed up only in the fairyland in which the socialist Greens exist.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 182, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:20]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Climate Change
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (16:23): Before moving general business notice of motion 186, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Bilyk will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Bilyk, move:
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.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:23): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: In 2018, Australia had the largest per capita level of investment in clean energy in the world—more than the UK, Germany and France combined. We're working to deliver Snowy 2.0, the Battery of the Nation, the National Hydrogen Strategy and investment in bioenergy and lithium research. Labor is hopelessly divided on energy and has abandoned the climate platform it took to the last election. We call on all Labor senators to follow the lead of the shadow minister for agriculture and resources and endorse the government's sensible climate policy and agenda instead of pursuing reckless targets that will hit Australian families and small business the hardest.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:24): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: We oppose this motion. Labor only recently lost the unlosable election, in large part due to their extreme climate policies, which would have destroyed the Australian economy and transferred our manufacturing industries to the likes of China and India, who have not burdened themselves with virtue-signalling UN climate policies. What does real climate action look like to the Labor Party? Is it transitioning away from cheap, clean hydrocarbon energy sources that power the economy to expensive, intermittent solar and wind that could not even produce enough energy to produce themselves? What would be the benefit of this transition? According to Australia's Chief Scientist, if the entire Australian economy stopped tomorrow and reduced our 1.5 per cent carbon dioxide output to zero, it will have virtually no effect on global temperature. What could be Labor's motivation to kill our economy for no benefit? The answer, my friends, lies in the Labor platform of democratic socialism.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:25): I seek leave to move amendments to general business notice of motion No. 186 moved by Senators Polley and Bilyk, and I also seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will deal with the first one first. Is leave granted to amend the motion.
Leave granted.
Senator McKIM: I move:
(1) Omit subparagraph (a) (i)
(2) Omit subparagraph (a) (ii), substitute
(a) (ii) investing in renewable energy is essential to ensure real action on climate change, and
(3) Omit paragraph (c)
Proposed amended motion would read as follows:
To move—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(ii) investing in renewable energy is essential to ensure real action on climate change, 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) understands that every Australian deserves a government that looks to the future and makes the necessary policy reforms and investments to secure that future;
(d) notes that projects, such as the proposed hydrogen production facility at Bell Bay, should have bipartisan support;
(e) 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;
(f) understands that Tasmania Hydrogen can provide one-quarter of Northern Tasmania's export growth over the next 10 years;
(g) 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
(h) 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.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted to make a one minute statement?
Leave not granted.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:30): The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 186 standing in the name of Senators Polley and Bilyk, as amended, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:35]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Climate Change
Petroleum Industry
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:37): At the request of Senator Di Natale, I move:
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.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:37): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: This motion bells the cat on yesterday's Labor-Greens motion in the other place. By declaring a climate emergency, Labor and the Greens have signalled their intent to completely shut down our coal, oil and gas sectors. This would destroy jobs, drive up cost-of-living pressures and decimate the economy. The Liberal-National government is taking real and meaningful action to reduce our emissions and meet our 2030 target while continuing to grow the economy.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: We will be opposing this. It's a shame Senator Di Natale is not here, because on 20 September a Victorian arborist called my staff to say that when he listens to Senator Di Natale talking about climate change it sounds like a 50-year-old trying to convince us that Santa is real. The first step in dealing with this topic is telling the truth about science and relying on solid empirical data. Firstly, no specific empirical scientific evidence has ever been presented to prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Indeed, during 2009's global recession, human carbon dioxide output fell, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. Any measure cutting human carbon dioxide would be useless because, secondly, each year nature produces 32 times more in total than does global human production. Even the UN climate mob admits this. Thirdly, the laws of physics, chemistry and empirical data show nature alone controls the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Day 37 and still waiting— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind you that it's not appropriate to reflect on whether senators are in the chamber or not.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 191, standing in the name of Senator Di Natale, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:40]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Department of Home Affairs: Paladin Contracts
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:44): At the request of Senator Watt, I move:
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.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 194 standing in the name of Senator Watt be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:48]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Newstart and Youth Allowance
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:50): At the request of Senator Di Natale and Senator Dodson, I move:
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.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:51): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY 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 Australians, particularly families and children. That's why the government spends a third of the Commonwealth budget on our highly targeted and comprehensive social security and welfare system and is committed to supporting more Australians into jobs through programs like Jobactive and pursuing policies to support economic growth.
Question agreed to.
Newstart
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:51): I, and also on behalf of Senator Marielle Smith, move:
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.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (16:52): I seek leave to make a very short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Australia has a targeted and comprehensive welfare system which is sustainable as a result of the government's prudent fiscal management and our strong economy.
Question agreed to.
Water Infrastructure
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:53): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the New South Wales Government plans to water down environmental rules to fast-track approvals for new dams and pipelines,
(ii) the Murray-Darling River is in environmental collapse and bypassing environmental protections will do more harm,
(iii) plans to override environmental protections will have negative impacts on downstream communities and the health of the river system, and
(iv) building dams will not make it rain; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to rule out giving any public funding to dam and water infrastructure projects that circumvent environmental assessment and do not abide by proper environmental protections.
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 DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Australian government welcomes the commitment of the New South Wales government to secure future water supplies for communities in rural and regional Australia. The drought has highlighted the need to look deliberately and responsibly at new water infrastructure nationally. This is vital for the long-term future of many communities in regional Australia. Any dam approvals, either within the Murray-Darling Basin or outside it, will need to meet any necessary state and federal environmental approvals.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: Labor will not be supporting the motion. I acknowledge that Senator Hanson-Young postponed it yesterday at my request. I do acknowledge that. However, we are not in a position to support it as we are waiting for more information that's apparently coming from the New South Wales government. That hasn't been provided as yet and so we're not in a position to support the motion at this time, but I do acknowledge the postponement yesterday.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: We oppose this. A lack of rain has caused the drought but disastrous government regulation and a lack of foresight in building dams and water infrastructure has caused the water crisis. The fact is that the south of the Murray-Darling Basin is different from the north. The south has relatively regular and reliable water from the Snowy and higher rainfall, while the north has low rainfall and highly irregular rain in river catchments and relies on flood events from irregular cyclones and large storms.
One irregular cyclone or tropical low in the right part of a river catchment in the north brings water for years. Anyone who understands Australian climate and geography knows that. What the Greens fail to comprehend is that with additional dams—in particular, ones that could store water currently being lost as it runs out to sea in the north—the environment would benefit. More water within the Murray-Darling Basin system would increase water for the environment, farmers and communities. Everyone wins with dams.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:56): Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to include a late notice of motion restoring a bill to the Notice Paper.
Leave granted.
Senator GALLAGHER: I'm sorry, Senator Duniam, I cleared it with your colleague Senator Smith. On the next day of sitting, I shall move the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the stage reached in the 45th Parliament.
MOTIONS
Violence Against Women
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (16:57): I move:
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.
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 DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government is committed to preventing, addressing and ultimately ending family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia. Violence against women and children is an issue this government is responding to with the largest-ever Commonwealth investment of $340 million to support the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. This funding is improving frontline services to keep women safe, providing safe places for women and children escaping violence and supporting prevention strategies to end violence against women. This is a significant achievement.
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:58): I move:
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.
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 DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government is taking real and meaningful action to reduce Australia's impact on the environment and the government is on track to meet and beat our 2020 target, and we have a strong plan to achieve the 2030 target. We recognise that many local councils feel strongly about climate change and we encourage them to consider practical and meaningful ways to reduce their impact on the environment within their local communities.
Question agreed to.
National Dyslexia Awareness Month
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (16:59): I move:
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.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call?
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:59): Yes, I am seeking the call. It is not yet five o'clock. You've still got two motions on the paper, and I have my bill to move. There was time to move it. I'm questioning why you didn't.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, if you want me to move any further business, you'll need to seek leave. The agreement is for approximately 5 pm. We will go back to business at the conclusion of the first speeches and the valedictories. Do you wish to seek leave?
Senator HANSON: No.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (17:00): I thank the Deputy President for stepping in for me during my absence today. Pursuant to order, I call on Senator Henderson to make her first speech. I ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her.
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (17:00): On this most historic day for the Liberal Party of Australia, I am honoured and humbled to make my first speech as a Liberal senator for Victoria, or my second first speech as a federal MP, or—as Senator Ruston quipped when we flew into Canberra on Sunday night—my first real speech in what is clearly the superior chamber! However characterised, after so proudly serving for two terms as the member for Corangamite, it is absolutely wonderful to be back. In this chamber, there may be different procedures and traditions and challenges in the making of laws which govern our nation—and a few more colourful characters—but my mission to be a strong and determined Liberal voice for the people I represent has not changed.
We live in a truly incredible country. I am here in this place because I love my country and because I have great hopes and dreams for its future. I am here because, through the pursuit of good policy, I want to contribute to building a better nation. I am here because I want to help advance the opportunities for the people who live in our great state of Victoria, particularly those living in regional Victoria and Melbourne's west, where I will be focusing much of my efforts. I am here to recommit myself to the Liberal Party, to which I am so proud to belong, and to the members of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party, whom I am so proud to represent. And I am here as a proud member of the Morrison government. We have a great Prime Minister. I, too, believe in miracles.
It was on this day 75 years ago that the Liberal Party of Australia was formed. This is cause for great celebration. On 16 October 1944, in a hall not from here, a coalition of non-Labor organisations united under the leadership of Sir Robert Menzies to create what would become Australia's most successful postwar political party. Menzies' mission was clear. He said:
…what we must look for, and it is a matter of desperate importance to our society, is a true revival of liberal thought which will work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen, though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism.
Five years later, at the 1949 general election, in contrast to Labor's petrol rationing and divisive plan to nationalise the banks, the Liberal Party offered a postwar Australia full of opportunity and freedom. Menzies spoke of the freedoms and liberties which were and remain the essence of Liberalism. He said:
The real freedoms are to worship, to think, to speak, to choose, to be ambitious, to be independent, to be industrious, to acquire skill, to seek reward. These are the real freedoms, for these are of the essence of the nature of man.
Australia was at a crossroads and Australians chose the Liberal road. And, whenever they have chosen the Liberal road in all elections since, they have done so because we have offered that fundamental choice.
The times have changed, but not our values. The forgotten people, the Howard battlers, the quiet Australians—Australians from different eras but with the same needs and ambitions—from Menzies to Morrison, Liberal governments throughout our history, in partnership with our coalition partners, the Nationals, have worked hard to foster, not hinder, aspiration; encourage equality of opportunity, not outcomes; and harness the hard work and enterprise of Australians, rather than prosecute an ethos of dependency and self-entitlement. We did this through a postwar economic expansion, which tripled our economy and boosted home ownership, by initiating the end of the White Australia policy, by responsible economic management and by a succession of international trading and security agreements—none more important than ANZUS, which has been the cornerstone of Australia's security for nearly 70 years.
I acknowledge in particular John Howard, a doyen of our party and our longest serving living Prime Minister, who secured our borders, delivered 10 surplus budgets, delivered historic tax reform and captured the heart of the nation when he reformed our gun laws after the tragedy of Port Arthur.
In my last first speech, I spoke of the impact of nurse Lynne Beavis, one of Port Arthur's heroes, whose story I told as an ABC journalist. When tragedy or disaster strikes, whether it be crime, drought, flood or fire, there are heroes and champions to be found in every community—people like Wye River CFA captain Roy Moriarty, who led his community to safety in the face of 2015 Christmas Day bushfires in which 116 homes were lost. It was an honour and privilege to support the communities of Wye River and Separation Creek in the face of such adversity, and to fight for justice on behalf of bushfire victims who were treated so appallingly by AAMI insurance.
Our nation now faces another disaster, a soul-destroying drought which is ravaging scores of communities across Queensland, New South Wales and parts of Victoria. That is why surplus budgets are so important, because they give us the capacity to make the big decisions, such as our $5 billion Future Drought Fund, vital to building the long-term resilience of regional communities.
As I undertook to my preselectors, my very first task as a new senator was to travel to northern Victoria to meet with farmers. Many are facing crisis. In the Murray-Darling Basin, managing the impacts of drought is extraordinarily complex. We must always ask what more we can do, whether it be a serious review of environmental water allocations for the Murray or new water-trading rules to combat the corporate water hoarders and price takers. Water storage infrastructure is vital. In contrast to the $1 billion we are investing with the New South Wales government to construct new dams, the Victorian government is refusing to green light any new dam. This decision must be reversed.
Similarly, Premier Daniel Andrews must allow the mining of onshore conventional gas. Victoria is at a tipping point, facing blackouts over this coming summer, now with the highest electricity prices in the nation. We need more dispatchable power, and we are making plenty of efforts in terms of our contribution to driving down energy prices. But we need to see the gas taken out of the Otway Basin onshore, as the state permits offshore. This is desperately required.
Australians expect their governments to make the right decisions, the tough decisions. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Morrison, Treasurer Frydenberg and Minister for Finance Senator Cormann, our plan for a strong economy includes returning the budget to surplus, record jobs growth, lower taxes and a $100 billion infrastructure spend.
We are leading the way in combating global economic headwinds. We are also working extremely hard to invest in the support Australians deserve in health, skills and training, education, aged care, child care, disability and housing, and in taking the tough action to combat family violence, suicide, mental illness and religious discrimination. Yes, there is much more to do. I am proud of our government's work to overturn bad laws such as the carbon and mining tax, which destroyed jobs and stifled investment. I am pleased that some in Labor now understand the folly of punishing aspiration and taking from Australians their hard-earned savings by pursuing reckless policies on energy, franking credits and negative gearing.
Our government's election win on 18 May was a reminder that quiet Australians expect their governments to get out of the way whilst providing certainty, stability and confidence in the future. These are the same quiet Australians who I believe are rejecting the noisy and insidious march of the extreme left, particularly in Victoria—the animal rights groups attacking our farmers, the climate warriors gluing themselves to the streets and the inappropriate gender based activism in our schools and on our sporting fields. Even our basic right to speak freely is under challenge. I recently addressed an audience where I was asked not to say 'ladies and gentlemen' for fear these words might offend. This is just silly. As for the push to declare a climate emergency, taking strong action on climate change is important, and we are, including by reaching our Paris targets.
But, I say, please visit the Alice Springs Women's Refuge, which is in reality a homicide prevention centre for Aboriginal women and their children escaping horrific family violence. That's where you find the emergencies. In August 2017 I visited this refuge as chair of a House of Representatives inquiry into family violence law reform. I urged the government to adopt all of the inquiry's recommendations, including ensuring that allegations of family violence can be determined early in proceedings so as to protect both victims of family violence and those against whom false allegations are made. I commend the Attorney-General's eminently sound proposal to merge the two family law courts. We are listening. We know more urgent reform is required. This is a jurisdiction which so often results in increased risk, trauma, prohibitive costs, a lack of justice and unacceptable delays. The member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, will make an excellent chair of our new joint select commit inquiry into the family law system, and I am confident he will drive the next wave of urgent reform. Lived experience matters, and it's disappointing to see the unwarranted attacks on Senator Hanson by those opposite. She shares many of my concerns and will make an important contribution.
In my first speech in the other place, I committed to being a strong local voice for the people of Corangamite, which would sometimes require only a whisper and at other times a roar of determination. It's fair to say that, over the past six years, I've done a lot more roaring than whispering. On that note, I acknowledge members of the G20 alliance in the gallery today. I want to particularly congratulate Stephanie Asher on her election last night as the new mayor of the City of Greater Geelong. I can't apologise for the roaring. The people of Corangamite deserved no less. Major road and rail infrastructure investments, a new international terminal for Avalon Airport, and dozens of upgrades to community, sport, and surf lifesaving facilities. More recent announcements, including a $370 million Geelong City Deal in partnership with the state and local councils, an incredible $2.7 billion for faster rail infrastructure, and the howitzer defence manufacturing project, will drive another wave of opportunity for our region.
At the last election, despite a terrible redistribution in Corangamite which carved more than three per cent from our margin, we never gave in. We fought Labor, the Greens and the unions at every turn, and, as patron senator, I am ready for one hell of a fight at the next election. As part of that commitment, I am delighted to announce that we are up and running in a new permanent office on Moorabool Street, Geelong, as the only Liberal senator located in regional Victoria. It's a key part of my Senate action plan. At its heart is my determination to stand up for every community, big and small, including places like Deans Marsh—Senator Di Natale isn't here at the moment—where we are building a new community pavilion. This is the Liberal way.
Our government is working hard to invest in greater skills and training, but too many students continue to fall through the cracks. One idea is to revive federally funded Australian Technical Colleges—a great initiative of the Howard government—so that students seeking a technical rather than an academic education are provided with a comprehensive pathway. The few which continue to operate, including one in Hamilton, Victoria, are kicking major goals.
Another major concern is the need for better regional transport infrastructure. Across Victoria, the delivery of projects like the Geelong rail duplication, for which I fought so hard and secured, with a bit of help, $850 million, is far too slow. There is better progress on the Ballarat Line Upgrade, backed mainly by Commonwealth funding, but we are still waiting for the state to match the $2 billion our government has committed to faster rail between Geelong and Melbourne. The plan to construct a second duplicated rail track between Wyndham and the Sunshine Coast and a dedicated line and tunnel through to Southern Cross Station as part of the Melbourne Airport rail project, to which we are contributing another $5 billion, is incredibly exciting. It will cut travel time by 32 minutes and provide a desperately needed separate service to Melbourne's western growth corridor. There is concern, however, that the state may seek to compromise this plan. This simply cannot happen. My next mission, I say with a roar—and I think the minister is sitting behind me—is to ensure that fast rail to Melbourne is also funded for Ballarat and Bendigo, cities we have included in our fast rail plan. And, with $4 billion on offer from our government, let's please just build the East West Link.
At this time of such global uncertainty—and I join with Senator Payne in expressing deep concern and distress about the situation in Turkey and Syria—we face a new crossroads. To keep our nation strong, we must take the right road on food and water security, and Australia's security and strategic interests. We've taken enormous strides to combat terrorism and foreign interference, support our intelligence agencies and build our defence capability. Our relationships with our key allies have never been more important, but we need to call it out when things aren't working. Australia's critical infrastructure assets—our airports, power stations, data networks, communications infrastructure and ports, including the Port of Darwin—should simply not be falling into foreign hands.
There is also scope, I believe, to re-examine other aspects of our foreign investment laws, such as restricting, perhaps by way of allowing only leasehold, the foreign acquisition of prime agricultural land. I believe in free competitive markets and in the importance of foreign capital to help us build a better nation. But we must never forget that we are a country before we are an economy. As your senator for Victoria, my first duty is to our country.
In the last parliament I was honoured to serve as Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services. I am proud of the many reforms we delivered in disability and the NDIS, especially accommodation support for those with very high needs. We know there is much hard work to be done; this remains one of the government's highest priorities. We continue to invest very heavily in housing and homelessness, including the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, inspired by the incredibly successful Keystart program in Western Australia. I would like to see this initiative extended to other Australians facing housing stress, such as older women.
Today, I don't propose to tell my life story—that is in my other first speech, which Senator Canavan said I should have just used today! I do, however, want to say a few thankyous. To the people of Corangamite for the honour of serving them, thank you. To Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, thank you for your enduring support and friendship and your wonderful belief in me. This means a great deal. To Senator Cormann, for all your support since I joined this chamber and became a senator, particularly in relation to my new office, thank you. To my other Liberal and National parliamentary colleagues in this place and the other place, thank you for your friendship and support, particularly those who endorsed my preselection—Tony Smith, Michael Sukkar, Alan Tudge, Jason Wood, Greg Hunt, Dan Tehan, Kevin Andrews, Senator Payne, Senator Reynolds and Senator Hume—for which I am most grateful. To Yaron Finkelstein, Andrew Hirst, Simon Frost, Nick Demiris and Jocelen Griffiths, a sincere thankyou. To Michael Ronaldson, a true mentor and friend, thank you for everything you have done for me for more than a decade. Without you, I could not have won Corangamite in 2013. To my Liberal family in Corangamite, particularly Robert Charles, Ian Cover, Robyn Cox—or Crazy Granny, as my son, Jeremy, calls her—Bob Vinecombe, Ian Smith, Tom Roe and Carol Walters, and to those we have lost, such as the inspiring Alan Cover, thank you for your commitment, your dedication and your friendship.
To Victorians, including Liberal Party members across our great state, thank you for the opportunity to serve. I look forward to working hard as your strong Liberal voice for Victoria. To my friends and family and supporters, some of whom are here in the gallery today, I could not do this without you. Thank you in particular to Jeff Kennett, Denis Napthine, Ted Baillieu, Peta Credlin, Fiona Ogilvy-O'Donnell, Bev McArthur, Helen Kroger, Tim Smith, Richard Riordan, Louise Staley and Michael Kroger.
I am who I am because of my family—my wonderful mother, Ann, a dynamo in everything she did, including as a Victorian MP and cabinet minister, and my inspiring and caring father, Michael, who loved nothing more than to shoot, sail and camp with his family under the stars. I miss them every day.
I want to thank my magnificent siblings, Jodie and Andrew, who I love very much. They are my rock. Together with Robbie, Gus, Marcus, Louis and now Gerwyn, I am blessed. And to the most special person in my life, my 13-year-old son, Jeremy—another miracle—as I have always said, I love you to infinity and beyond. Having a mother in politics is not easy. At least as a senator there will be no more billboards! But without your support and patience, I would never have embarked on this incredible journey. Thank you.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
The PRESIDENT (17:26): Pursuant to order, the Senate will now move to valedictory statements.
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (17:27): I'll be resigning from the Senate in mid-November after eight years in this chamber and four decades in and around politics and government. It has been a privilege to serve. I love this place and all that it stands for. I did not grow up thinking I'd become a politician. I've always been an avid follower of news, current affairs and politics. I studied economics to learn how the world works. I joined the Public Service to apply those principles to real world problems. I joined John Howard's office from Treasury in 1987, because I admired his brand of liberalism and his pluck and courage in advocating reform from the hard yards of opposition. I enjoyed being at the coalface of policy and political advice.
I returned to Treasury in 1989, when he lost the leadership, but I came back in 1995, when he became opposition leader again. His career is testament to the benefits of recycling! I stayed with him until 2006, serving for nine years as prime ministerial chief of staff. When I left in 2006, I thought I was done with politics—been there, done that, the whole shebang!—but Helen Coonan and Rick Forbes encouraged me to consider making a contribution on the front line. I thank them for their faith in me. My wife, Elizabeth, was cautious at first but backed me, encouraging me to have a go, for which I will always be grateful. I have more about her later. Thank you to Marise and Connie for escorting me into the chamber that October in 2011. Well done, Marise, our first female defence minister, who is doing a sterling job in foreign affairs. Connie remains a good friend, and I think she did an outstanding job as our Pacific minister.
I thank the party leaders who backed me. I was Tony Abbott's shadow parliamentary secretary in opposition and Assistant Treasurer in government. I pay tribute to the fighting spirit of Tony Abbott, who took us from opposition back into government. I was Cabinet Secretary in Malcolm Turnbull's first ministry and later Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, a role I relished. Malcolm Turnbull brought a rational lens to policy development and a laser-like focus to problem-solving.
But the best part of my job has been to meet so many of my fellow Australians from different parts of this great continent. Whatever our race, colour or creed, we are bound together by our good fortune in being born here or making the brave decision to forsake ancestral homes and settle Down Under, the best country in the world. For me, Australia is an immigrant nation. It is in our DNA. So too is our unique Indigenous heritage, with over 65,000 years of ongoing relationship with the land. This is a big country worthy of big ambitions. We should be infinitely optimistic about the possibilities that lie before us. Australia's best days lie ahead. We owe it to ourselves and to the world to make the most of our stewardship of this place. We are and should always be a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. For me the Australian way is to live and let live, engage in fair play and leave no-one behind.
We owe a special obligation to the minorities in our midst. These are the quiet Australians who need our help most. That includes Indigenous Australians, who seek more control over policies implemented in their name; disabled Australians, who want to be defined by their potential and not their disability; and those other marginalised Australians looking for gainful employment and social acceptance. The test of being an Australian is not genealogy but whether we adhere to timeless values that make our democracy work.
Politics is a noble calling, a vocation that puts the community and its aspirations before our own, and this parliament, as I said in my maiden speech, is still the pinnacle of the Australian achievement. Our liberal democracy, with the rule of law, an independent judiciary, English as our national language and our free press—all of these things have helped to sustain our prosperity and social harmony. Institutions matter. Respect for tradition and conventions matters, particularly in this age of disruption—technological, political and cultural. My brand of liberalism seeks to conserve the best of the past while adapting to the future. It is constructive progress and not change for change's sake.
And how rapidly the world around us is changing! Trust in our established institutions, such as politics, business, the churches and the media, has been weakened, and there is a palpable anger in so much of the public discourse. Democracy is increasingly questioned. There is a reheated romance in some quarters with old-fashioned socialism, and one person's push for diversity and inclusion is another person's divisive identity politics. We complain of a lack of privacy and in the same breath gladly surrender so much of our personal information to vast platforms and networks. Our data is being monetised to create new goods and services to our benefit but not necessarily always with our knowledge. These platforms have also created new possibilities for control and intimidation of citizens. Information is being fragmented and weaponised. The broadcast media is increasingly polarised and politicised, and the proliferation of media outlets means that people can select their news and facts to suit their own preconceptions and biases. The universities, hitherto bastions of free speech, are under attack from within and from outside. The scientific method is under attack, even as we benefit daily from the fruits of rigorous, evidence based inquiry. If we cannot even agree on basic facts, how can we have a civilised discourse? Look at the climate change debate. In the age of Twitter, the court of public opinion can be quickly turned into a kangaroo court, and natural justice runs a poor second. Intuitive responses are preferred to mature reflection.
The liberal democracies are open societies. That is our strength and vulnerability. We cannot meet threats to our democratic institutions by adopting the tactics of authoritarian regimes. That undermines our fundamental values and beliefs. Our role in this place is to stand up and defend those beliefs and to remind successive generations of the price that has been paid to build the democratic institutions that we enjoy today. As a liberal, for me first and foremost that means upholding the sanctity and freedom of the individual and her or his capacity to exercise responsibility.
The role of government is to preserve and, where possible, extend the domain of human freedom and opportunity. Freedom is right and freedom works. The success of the Australian economy over the last three decades is no accident of resource endowment or geography. It is overwhelmingly a testament to the benefits of economic freedom. The opening up of the Australian economy to market forces has not been easy. Along the way, there have been winners and losers, but the benefits are overwhelmingly positive. We are bigger, stronger and more resilient to external shocks. Look at how we dealt with the Asian financial crisis and absorbed the resources boom and its aftermath. There has been no repeat of the stop-start policies of the eighties and nineties, when inflation was snuffed out through swingeing increases in interest rates, precipitating major economic downturns.
The productivity impulse generated by earlier reform programs has ebbed in recent years. Reform is a journey, not an endpoint. We need to double our rate of productivity growth to maintain the average income growth of recent decades. That will require more freedom and more investment—public and private, domestic and foreign. The world is awash with savings looking for a home. Improving investment returns will require more focus on science and innovation, to build new industries and jobs; ongoing action to reduce the costs of doing business, including streamlined regulation; and, in the absence of lower company taxes, other investment incentives as foreshadowed by the Treasurer.
Ben Morton's deregulation agenda should encompass not only paperwork and process but structural impediments to competition, innovation and growth. The Australian economy needs more competition. Governments should be removing barriers to entry and policies that benefit large incumbents. That's why I support consumer data rights and open banking, and the possible extensions of that to telcos and energy companies. That's why I think differences in the capital treatment of large and small banks should also be ironed out to create a more level playing field.
The compulsory super system should also be as open and competitive as possible. We need to tackle the structural causes of high fees and address the fate of low-income earners who accumulate balances that are largely eaten up by fees. The income threshold at which compulsory super cuts in has been the same since the super guarantee was introduced in 1992.
I know this caused us grief at the time, but I strongly support the changes to super that we made in our 2016 budget. They were necessary to create more equity in the system going forward. We could not preach expenditure restraint to the public at large while protecting concessions that largely benefited only a few. I applaud the policy courage of the then Treasurer, who is now our Prime Minister, and of the continuing finance minister, in prosecuting the case. The focus of the review should be on structural changes to address the ageing of our population and not short-term revenue-raising.
The Prime Minister is right to pursue mutually beneficial evidence based reform of industrial relations that does not undermine terms and conditions. The world of work is changing around us. Flexible workplaces, digitally enabled, are the way of the future. New types of jobs are being created. Learning is lifelong, and the pace of change is throwing up opportunities in the new services economy. I am very optimistic about the net jobs benefits of automation, which will free up workers for higher level tasks. Machines should do machine work, not people. History demonstrates the benefits of technological change. We don't need a universal basic income, but governments creating opportunity for workers to acquire the skills to embrace this new world and the dignity of work. If we prepare properly, we can become empowered and confident to embrace new technologies.
The government's skills agenda is central to this process. We can imagine the jobs of the future using tools like Faethm, an Australian company. Michael Priddis and his colleagues have created a powerful tool to analyse the impact of automation on jobs, companies, industries and entire economies. Their platform is an essential planning tool that other governments are using to guide policy development. We should too.
I am passionate about the role of government in catalysing new industry development to capitalise on emerging technological trends. I was proud to initiate the review of Australia's space industry capability and to appoint Megan Clark to head the review group. Illness prevented me from announcing the Space Agency in September 2017. I think you did, Birmo, in the end, in my absence, as a good South Australian. The infusion of funds through the agreement with NASA recently announced overseas will encourage Australian companies to become part of the supply chains for new space ventures.
The cyber sector is also one of great potential for Australia. I believe we can be a world leader. AustCyber, under Michelle Price, is doing a great job in tackling impediments to that development. On my watch, the Commonwealth supported another Michelle, Michelle Simmons, a former Australian of the Year, by providing funds into the joint public-private venture that is working on a functional quantum computer, the next frontier in revolutionising computing capacity. The point of doing this sort of stuff at the government level is to help Australian industries get in on the ground floor of new developments. That's when you can create a world-leading edge—and that's very important going forward.
Embracing alternative energy sources such as renewables is an opportunity rather than a cost. The transition in the energy system cannot be reversed, and technology is constantly evolving to create appropriate firming and backup that is essential to avoiding volatility as more renewables enter the power grid. I am optimistic that new technologies will keep reducing the cost of energy and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. We should keep our options open on nuclear energy, but that raises a host of broader issues I dare not go into here. I am proud of what the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation is doing in the field of nuclear medicine. With the support of the opposition—Kim Carr was very supportive on that occasion—I was able to get legislation passed to enable ANSTO to create the world's first nuclear science and technology incubator, on-site facilities for students and a technology park that will make Lucas Heights a jobs hub.
When it comes to climate change, policymakers have to act on the basis of the best scientific evidence available. We rely on the intelligence agencies to give us their best advice on security threats; of course, final decisions always rest with us as the elected representatives. The same model should apply to climate matters and almost everything else impinging on our health and the natural world. I once tried to get Senator Roberts together with CSIRO to have a debate about climate change. We had, I think, about two or three meetings, Senator Roberts, and I think the CSIRO scientists are still in rehab recovering from those meetings! That was part of what I thought was important in my role as science minister—to get people together and actually talk about these things and try to find common ground where possible.
I enjoyed the role of Cabinet Secretary. I dealt across the breadth of executive government and had the opportunity to contribute across all portfolio areas. I had no personal agenda or axes to grind. My interest was in good process as a basis for good policy and ensuring that the cabinet agenda reflected the government's overall aims and objectives. The aim was to ensure that the facts and subsidiary issues had been sorted out so that the cabinet only needed to focus on the major decisions required. A well-functioning cabinet is at the core of good government. Prime ministers must give their colleagues the full opportunity to have their say and sum up fairly and comprehensively the mood of the meeting. That is the best guarantee that ministers will respect the process and observe cabinet confidentiality, without which there can be no frank and free exchange of ideas and advice. One of the things I noticed, working both in the Prime Minister's office and in the cabinet, is that in our system prime ministers can have a lot of power because they can determine not only who gets into cabinet but also what the agenda is. We need a system of collective decision-making because a team approach is always better than a one-man-band approach.
I thank the many public servants I've worked with over the years—most recently, the secretaries and deputy secretaries, principally Martin Parkinson, who I've known for over 30 years; David Gruen in PM&C; Glenys Beauchamp, who was secretary of the industry department and did a great job with me; and Heather Smith, who arrived just as I was going. With so many competing sources of advice in the public arena, an apolitical APS is more important than ever. I hope the Thodey review of the Australian Public Service sets the scene for continued investment in capability and there is more focus on working across the silos and engaging in scenario planning on major cross-portfolio issues like the ageing of the population. How's that for a bit of jargon!
The Turnbull government's development of City Deals is something I was particularly keen to support because I believe it will revolutionise how the three tiers of government cooperate to develop coherent infrastructure and planning policies to maximise the prospects of cities and regions. I remain a believer in a bigger Australia. I support the proposed population planning framework—Tudgey has gone now, but the PM's here; welcome, PM—to coordinate state and federal infrastructure and other services with our immigration and settlement policies. Allied with our initiatives for fast transport links with the regions, this can give substance to decentralisation policies and improve housing affordability.
Governments have an important influence on the economics of regions. In some cases it's about how we keep existing regional industries going; in others, it's about how we facilitate transition. As industry minister, I worked closely with South Australia and Rowan Ramsey, the local member, to find a buyer for the Whyalla Steelworks. There were no short- or medium-term alternatives to provide a jobs hub for the region. I'm pleased that GFG Alliance stepped up to give Whyalla a new start.
Both in the Howard era and as patron senator for the Hunter, I was privileged to participate in efforts to redevelop the region after the closure of the BHP steelworks. Once the region processed the closure of the steelworks and was ready to move on, there was an opportunity to focus on building on areas of comparative advantage to create new industries. This was facilitated by the adoption of what's called a smart specialisation strategy and utilising the firepower of that great regional university the University of Newcastle.
Reflecting on my time in the industry portfolio, there are just three issues I want to call out. We must keep up the pressure for more collaboration between the knowledge creators and industry to maximise the commercialisation of domestic ideas. I laud what we've done on industry growth centres, our reform of research block grant funding arrangements and the development of innovation precincts. We should build out the ecosystem, as the Canadians have done with their MaRS Discovery District, so we can fuel the growth of Australian based unicorns serving global markets.
My second point is that I support big science—that is, capital facilities that allow Australian researchers to do leading-edge research here and to be preferred partners for international researchers. Blue-sky research, or what we used to call fundamental or basic research, is not only vital in itself; it's the foundation of so many great inventions and innovations. With my good friend Senator Birmingham, I developed a road map for funding such infrastructure. While I'm on the subject of Senator Birmingham, I thank him for his policy courage in the education portfolio. He reformed child care. What he did on school funding was hard, and I know we had to make compromises along the way, but he set out a framework to clean up the sector. Well done, Simon.
I signed off on our $129 million 10-year big science strategic partnership with the European Southern Observatory to secure the future of optical astronomy. That was a down payment on the agenda of looking after research infrastructure. I was also gratified that, by the end of 2017, resourcing the next iteration of high performance computers was agreed.
My third point on industry is very straightforward. I'm a strong proponent of strategic government procurement in industry development. The best example I can think of is what we've done with the creation of the defence industry portfolio. It will encourage domestic spin-offs from our record defence spending to help create sovereign industry capabilities.
The rise of an assertive and powerful new superpower, China, is challenging the liberal order built up painstakingly over 70 years. Now is not the time to retreat from that order or for nations to practice beggar-thy-neighbour policies. We have all gained immeasurably from the peace and globalisation of trade and investment that has resulted from the international rules based order. The liberal West must be united in resolute defence of the decent, humane universal values that underpin that order and continue to find ways to deepen China's engagement and commitment to that order. The world needs a strong and prosperous China that has a meaningful stake in the existing order.
The lesson we should take from history is not the winner-take-all approach of Versailles in 1919 but the generosity of the postwar 1945 settlement, when the United States led the creation of a new order encompassing allies and former enemies. It was one of the most generous acts of enlightened self-interest in recorded history. But if I can paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, I think we should maybe 'talk softly but carry a big stick'. As a country we must keep building up our military capability and continue to strengthen our core alliance with the United States and our strategic partnerships in the Indo-Pacific.
We can be very confident about our ability to punch above our weight internationally in pursuit of our national interest. The resuscitation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership minus the US was a great achievement that required hard work by Australia and Japan in particular. Australia has also been a global leader in calling out and legislating against foreign interference in domestic politics and taking measures to protect critical infrastructure.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to continue to serve this great country. The celebrated election win was, in my view, no accident. It was the product of a lot of hard work and campaigning experience by a leader who is probably the most complete politician of his generation. I want to thank John Howard for being the best boss ever. When I left in 2006 I respected him even more than at the beginning, not only as a reformer but also as a role model in all ways.
I would not be in parliament if it were not for the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. I know this branch sometimes gets bad press but, I have to say, I've been struck by a number of things. The first thing is that when you join a party your obligation is to uphold its name and live up to its ideals. It's not a vehicle for personal ambition but a movement for the advancement of the community. As elected representatives we have to keep faith with our lay members and volunteers, because, overwhelmingly, in dealing with the New South Wales branch, what I've found is people who seek nothing for themselves but everything for their country and their party. They are the decent backbone of this country.
Thanks to the long-suffering party directors, who are often the unsung heroes of our success; my good friend Tony Nutt, who was my partner in crime for so long in the PMO; Chris Stone, who's become such a successful director, having just won state and federal elections here in New South Wales; Andrew Hirst, who cut his teeth in the PMO with the rest of us and who's gone on to be such a formidable leader and campaigner in his own right; Brian Loughnane, who's had so many victories and so much experience over so many years and has remained a friend; and Crosby Textor. They are not just good pollsters but true believers who were signed on for the bigger vision of what we were about. And thanks to the party presidents, like Nick Greiner and Shane Stone. Shane Stone is a close friend of mine, a great Australian, and if you ever want to get frank and fearless advice he's your man, although I'd encourage him not to put it in writing!
Thank you to my wonderful, wonderful staff, led by my good friend Peter Stephens, who's been helping me with the transition to my next life, and Andrew Hamilton for so capably leading the team while I was on sick leave and preparing so meticulously for the election campaign—he now works in the PMO. A major thanks to the lioness, Fiona Brown, who worked with me in the PMO, those years ago, and who set up my Senate and ministerial offices. She's been the anchor through the toughest political times and I owe my longevity in this place to her. She is now in the PMO too. Notice a pattern?
My special thanks to Stephen Brady, a PMO veteran and my best friend for over thirty years, who visited me every day I was in hospital. He became my case manager, offering solace and the best advice, even if at times I didn't like it.
To Richard Pye and the whole Senate team: thank you for your hard work, your top-level advice, your unfailing courtesy and helpfulness, and, above all, your fair dealing with all sides. That's what makes institutions like this what they are.
Thank you to my friend Mathias for being such a great wrangler of the Senate vote and a role model of someone who came here in his 20s and achieved so much in his adopted country. George Brandis is a good friend whom I admire as a classic and consistent small-l liberal. But a special debt is owed to my good friend Eric Abetz, my first leader in this place. Your first leader is a bit like your first love—very platonic man-love! Eric and I did not always agree, but he has always had my back, and I admire his great dignity and courage even in the most difficult of personal circumstances. Mr President, you've been a true friend through thick and thin. You and I could write a book about the last few years, but I don't think we want to blow up the whole place just yet! I must say that I fear you're an endangered species, being almost the last economic rationalist in captivity, but keep up the good fight.
Most importantly, thank you to my family. Elizabeth was a conscript to politics, but she has kept it together through the hardest of times. She is now fully engaged in her own career. As I said in my maiden speech, she is tougher, smarter and a better judge of people than me. She is completely ruthless; she should be the politician in the family! I haven't won an argument in 20 years, and the kids seem to have taken after her. To Dion, who's in Sydney studying for the HSC tomorrow, Isabella and Alexander, who are here: I'm sorry I've been away so often. Hopefully now we can spend real time together. I hope you don't get too bored!
Finally, colleagues on all sides, may I echo something I said in my maiden speech. Thank you for the welcome I have received since I have been here and for the many courtesies shown to me. I have listened to many speeches in this place, all well-researched and argued. I don't doubt the sincerity of the convictions that you bring to the table. I hope that, like you, I can look back on my career and say that, in a small way, I helped to make the best country in the world even better.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:00): I rise to pay tribute to our good friend and valued colleague Senator the Hon. Arthur Sinodinos. Arthur has provided outstanding public service to Australia for about four decades. He's now preparing to take on his next assignment for Australia, to represent our country with our most significant friend, ally and economic partner, the United States.
Over the past 40 years, the last eight years as a senator for the great state of New South Wales, Arthur has served our country and, for most of that period, our Liberal cause with dedication, commitment and great distinction. When he entered the Senate in 2011, replacing Helen Coonan, as a senator for New South Wales Arthur was already a formidable presence of long standing in coalition circles. He was a giant of our Liberal cause already. He clearly stood out from other first-term politicians with his strong reputation as a respected political and policy contributor preceding him.
Arthur's rise began in earnest in 1987 when he took the position of senior economic adviser to John Howard, then the federal Leader of the Opposition and to become our longest-serving recent Liberal Prime Minister—and I would argue certainly one of our greatest Liberal prime ministers and our greatest prime ministers of Australia ever. It was that initial two-year stint which laid the foundation for Arthur's incredible distinguished career of service to our country and the Liberal cause so far. In 1995 he returned to John Howard's office. Within two years he was appointed as his chief of staff. As a close confidant to the Prime Minister he was widely recognised as one of the most influential contributors in Australia.
When Arthur entered this chamber eight years ago it marked the return of an extremely skilled operator, and one of our best policy brains, to the coalition ranks. In opposition Arthur played a key role in developing the policies that drove the coalition to victory at the 2013 election. He chaired the coalition's deregulation task force to cut government red and green tape, which led to significant reform, reducing the cost of doing business in Australia after our election to government in September 2013.
As Assistant Treasurer in the Abbott government he invested his significant expertise on economic and fiscal policy matters to help the new government build and foster a stronger and stable economy. As Cabinet Secretary in the Turnbull government he provided significant strategic advice at the heart of the government while ensuring that all the important processes of government ran smoothly and that all the different policy perspectives on different issues had been appropriately heard and considered before a decision was made.
In 2017 Arthur became the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, and later that year it was Arthur who led the charge and who put Australia onto the path towards the establishment of a national space agency, and as he indicated in his remarks it was announced soon thereafter. Recent announcements of further investment in our space industry underscore the importance of Arthur's vision for space exploration. When Arthur delivered his first speech he described John Howard as:
… a fighter who was prepared the knocks to take for what he believed, pick himself up and keep going.
Arthur has emulated his distinguished former boss in many ways, but it was in his private life that Arthur was forced to really channel this fighting spirit when in 2017 he was diagnosed with cancer and forced to take leave to get well again. It was so good to see Arthur return to the Senate in good health, after his tough 18-month battle, cancer-free, and just in time to help us win the 2019 election. Talk about a fighting spirit! As Arthur embraced the survivorship phase of his battle with cancer earlier this year, he fittingly announced government funding for services at Sydney Cancer Centre, a facility of Chris O'Brien Lifehouse.
Politics is about helping people and improving lives. Arthur's altruistic nature is not just confined to politics. He has been a member of a wide range of pro bono boards, including the Mary MacKillop Foundation, the Aboriginal Employment Strategy and the Australian Institute of Management. He is, of course, a proud Australian of Greek heritage and has always been active in the local Greek community here in Australia. It was the combination of his strong community involvement, his public service to our nation and his contribution to the development of economic policy and reform which saw him recognised through his appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2008.
Arthur has forged an incredibly impressive career and, unsurprisingly, there is more to come. Through his longstanding and very senior contribution to our country, from the back room to the front line of politics, Arthur is the perfect fit to pick up from Joe Hockey as our top international envoy. As our next ambassador to the United States, Arthur goes to Washington at a pivotal time in our deep and enduring relationship with America. As we have recently celebrated 100 years of mateship between our countries, Arthur will help us lay the foundations for the next 100 years.
Arthur, we wish you well as you depart this place for the international stage, and we know you will represent Australia's interests with distinction, as you always have. In your first speech, in 2011, you said that you hoped to be able to look back on your career and say that, in a small way, you helped make the best country in the world even better—something that you also referenced today in your remarks. Australia is in a much better and stronger position today, and Australians have better opportunities to get ahead today because of the contribution that you have made so far. And, of course, there is more to come. Our country is fortunate to retain your services in Washington. On behalf of the coalition team in the Senate, we wish you all the very best in your future endeavours and, in particular, in taking on the responsibilities as our ambassador to the United States. Thank you for your service so far.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:07): I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the valedictory remarks of Senator the Hon. Arthur Sinodinos AO and to reflect on his career. At the outset, I express the regret of Senator Wong that she could not be here to deliver these remarks. She absolutely wanted to do that personally. I may lack Senator Wong's gravitas, but I'll give it my best shot anyway.
Senator Sinodinos has had a career spent substantially in public service. He was a Treasury officer, he served as chief of staff to Prime Minister John Howard for a decade, he has served as a senator since 2011 and he will serve as Australia's next ambassador to the United States of America. Public service is, indeed, a noble calling. Unlike our leader, Senator Wong, Senator Arthur Sinodinos was born in Australia. But, like many others in this place, they share a great pride in their multicultural heritage. That the son of a merchant mariner, who was also a lifelong member of the Seamen's Union of Australia, and a part-time seamstress, both of whom were Greek migrants, could take a seat in the Australian Senate says much about our country.
In his first speech, in 2011, Senator Sinodinos correctly identified the enabling power of education and its importance in ensuring that our children grow up with a global outlook. This remains as relevant as ever today. As a minister, Senator Sinodinos often actually answered the question. This, we believe, is an example that others can learn from. In 2014, after a typically unproductive series of exchanges with Senator Cormann, Senator Wong did make this point in an estimates hearing:
It was so much better when Senator Sinodinos was here. Notwithstanding the ICAC problem, as least we got questions up. Can we bring back Arthur—even if he is conflicted?
On another occasion, in 2015, Senator Wong asked:
Can we have Arthur Sinodinos back? It was more fun.
Senator Cormann had refused to answer that question too!
We know that Senator Sinodinos has confronted significant personal health challenges in recent times. It is a reminder to us all to keep our work and conflict here in perspective. It is a tribute to his determination and tenacity that he not only returned to the Senate but now prepares to undertake a new and demanding role.
Senator Sinodinos and Senator Wong also sat next to each other on the election-night panel on ABC television this year. It is fair to say that he probably had a more enjoyable night than she did! But Senator Wong—and she particularly wanted me to emphasise this point—would like to acknowledge and thank you, publicly, for the gracious way you conducted yourself that night, a difficult night for those of us in the Australian Labor Party. Many others would have been much quicker to gloat in victory—but Senator Sinodinos did not, reflecting much about his character.
Of course, Senator Sinodinos and Senator Wong have not had a completely deferential relationship. It would be accurate to say that, during the life of the Abbott government, Senator Sinodinos came under sustained attack from the opposition in connection with the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. It was not always smooth sailing. In March 2014, the opposition spent the best part of a morning attempting to require Senator Sinodinos to make a statement to the chamber, only to have the motion fail. I'm confident that his colleagues are very grateful for the practice the opposition got in these circumstances, which has enabled us to refine our approach and achieve a greater degree of success on subsequent occasions with other ministers. Whilst the opposition will never shy away from applying appropriate parliamentary scrutiny where necessary, I'm sure Senator Sinodinos will be very happy if he is never again asked to remember anything to do with Australian Water Holdings.
Senator Sinodinos will take up leadership in one of our most significant and consequential overseas posts—our embassy in the United States of America. The relationship with the United States has been one of the central pillars of Australian foreign policy since the Second World War. The United States is one of Australia's closest friends and staunchest allies, and the enduring nature of the alliance between our countries reflects the fact that we have shared histories, interests and values—values like democracy and freedom, and respect for the rule of law. Both countries benefit from the relationship, which has succeeded and deepened over many decades under the leadership of both major parties in both countries. Senator Sinodinos will join a distinguished lineage of occupants of the post of ambassador which includes Richard Casey, Norman Makin, Andrew Peacock and Kim Beazley.
Of course, the closeness of our alliance does not mean that we will always agree with every aspect of American policy. One of the challenges Senator Sinodinos will face is communicating Australia's position respectfully but clearly when policies are introduced that we do not think are in Australia's best interests. Of critical importance for Senator Sinodinos will be developing, maintaining and strengthening relationships across different branches and levels of government. Whilst much of the public focus is on the presidency and our relations with the White House, this cannot be the sole point of connection. There is also vital cooperation on counterterrorism and defence. Often overlooked is the work our diplomats do to engage and build networks within the United States congress, which is critical if we are to advance crucial interests on matters such as trade and investment. So, too, are direct relationships at state level often bypassed in conversations about the alliance, yet there are great opportunities for Australia that can be harnessed through meaningful engagement at this level.
Senator Arthur Sinodinos has confronted political and personal adversity during his time as a senator. Throughout this, he was anchored by personal convictions, shaped by values, character and belief. Senator Wong reflected on the fact that he has been a worthy opponent and a respected colleague. The opposition thanks Senator Arthur Sinodinos for his service in this Senate, and wishes him well as the principal representative of Australia in the United States.
The PRESIDENT (18:14): I'm going to take this opportunity—a rare opportunity from the chair—to make some comments following Senator Sinodinos's valedictory speech. I'd like to reiterate everything Senator Cormann said on behalf of the government and the Liberal Party, and add a few of my own observations from working so closely with Arthur.
For those of us who remember the years before 1996 and the early days of the Howard government—even at a very young level—Arthur is a giant. He took over his role as chief of staff there in difficult days. He mentioned his offsider, Tony Nutt. They formed a duo that is probably the best political staffing combination that this building has seen. Arthur was always present for key decisions, rarely sought attention and rarely sought credit but was always integral to so many of the successes of that government.
But I'd like to talk about Arthur the person. Arthur's capability and the confidence he inspired in people was demonstrated by the address he just gave, one that not many of us could necessarily make upon our valedictory. Working with Arthur was always one of learning the importance of politeness, of being open-minded and of humility, and how that can inspire confidence in people around you and in the people who work for you. The inflamed rhetoric that occasionally takes over modern politics is not for Arthur; it is always the reason, the idea and treating people well.
I was privileged to serve as parliamentary secretary. It was actually a job I requested at the time. We shared a lot. I gained a lot more than I think I contributed, and I learned a great deal by working with him. He's always been open to ideas. He's always been offering very helpful advice, including to some of us who might be occasionally young and impulsive or a little bit passionate about things. But the advice and the way in which he worked with others is an exemplar to all of us in this building.
Arthur and I also shared some health challenges at around a similar time. Mine was serious but not as challenging or as critical as Arthur's. The way he kept in contact with me and the way he came through that is a testament to the character of the person. The speech Arthur just gave encapsulates what drove so many of us into politics in the 1990s and what we aspired to do—the values, the commitment to open minds, the commitment to the greater good and, most importantly, the commitment to share and ensure that others enjoy the opportunities that he so proudly outlines he has had. Arthur's departure is a loss to this parliament but, proudly, not a loss to the people of Australia through the office he is going to serve now at a very important time. We are fortunate to have worked together, I am fortunate to have worked with him and I am fortunate to call him a friend.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—The Nationals Whip in the Senate) (18:17): I rise today on behalf of the Nationals in the Senate. Unfortunately, our Senate leader had other commitments. The Nationals sincerely want to congratulate Senator Arthur Sinodinos on the astounding contribution he has made to our great nation through his service in this place both as a staff member and as a senator and to lament his leaving. It isn't a stretch to call Senator Sinodinos a great Australian. He served for nine years as chief of staff to the great John Howard, prosecuting the reform agenda that helped to insulate Australia from the global financial crisis. But not content to leave his contribution to our country at that, he was then appointed to the Senate to replace another great senator, Senator Helen Coonan. Since then, Senator Sinodinos has provided leadership, sage advice and intelligence to all of us on this side of parliament. He has certainly treated us in the Nationals as part of that team.
Senator Sinodinos, though a Liberal, is a staunch coalitionist and has almost always been a friend to the Nationals. We on the conservative side of politics will be forever grateful for the senator's policy acumen and practical political skills. No-one brings policy and politics together quite like Senator Sinodinos. In fact, he wrote the rulebook for that marriage for the Howard government. The synthesis of these two attributes has also contributed strongly to the longstanding coalition between the Nationals and the Liberals. For example, my former boss Senator Ron Boswell, a great friend and an absolutely genuine and hardworking advocate for the bush, would often drop by the Prime Minister's office unannounced and felt absolutely comfortable doing so. However, when the PM wasn't available, which wasn't surprising, Senator Sinodinos would graciously meet Ron and faithfully pass on the nature of the discussions to the PM—particularly, at that point in time, on Telstra, which was the subject of numerous robust discussions. This was a policy area of particular interest to Senator Boswell, and Senator Sinodinos used his ministerial positions once he joined the Senate to the betterment of Australia—as Assistant Treasurer, as Cabinet Secretary and as Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. And I note what he's done for the nuclear industry at Lucas Heights.
As the senator said in his maiden speech:
Observing John Howard convinced me that politics is not worth a candle unless you are fighting for something.
These words resonate with all of us in the Nats, because that's why we are here. We're here to fight rural and regional Australia. People like me and my colleagues, who live and work and raise families in rural and regional Australia, deserve the same opportunities and prosperity as others. So we need to take a leaf out of Senator Sinodinos's book and work the politics and the policy to deliver for the people we represent.
Senator Sinodinos's term hasn't always been plain sailing, and we acknowledge the quiet dignity that he took in 2017, stepping back from his ministerial duties and ultimately the parliament to concentrate on his health. His approach to his leukaemia diagnosis was the same as his approach to solving policy and political conundrums—no fanfare, instead discreet and humble determination. These must have been troubling times for the senator and his family, and both sides of the chamber were very relieved and pleased to see him return. Since then, the senator's advocacy for others who experience leukaemia is an absolute inspiration. He is a living and breathing demonstration that cancer doesn't always win.
The next chapter of his service to Australia will take place in Washington rather than Canberra. While we will miss him in this place, his appointment as the next Australian Ambassador to the United States means he won't be lost to public life and public service. I sincerely thank Senator Sinodinos for his service here as a senator, a minister, a coalition partner and a friend to the Nationals. Australia and our closest strategic ally are both looking forward to your next chapter. All the best.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (18:22): It is a great honour, indeed, to take a few moments of the Senate's time to reflect on a great man—one of the greatest sons of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party and a really amazing supporter of other people—Senator Sinodinos. I know that this evening people have reflected, rightly, on Senator Sinodinos's professional career and his enormous contribution to our country as a patriot. I want to mainly spend this time on the personal side. Yes, Senator Sinodinos served for 10 years as John Howard's chief of staff. Yes, he was a cabinet minister. Yes, he will be a great ambassador. Yes, he's been a president of the New South Wales division. Perhaps the greatest thing he's achieved professionally has been to win the universal respect of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party—no mean feat!
Senator Sinodinos has a particular form of liberalism which I think is compelling, and it is, as he described it in his own words, 'Live and let live.' Very much I think that is a good approach. But it's more than just live and let live. Forged from his economic training as a brilliant Treasury economist, he knows that you can't do anything as a country unless you secure the economic footing, and I think that has been reflected in all of the contributions that the senator has made. Even in his valedictory speech, he was still making the case, still presenting new economic ideas, still seeing that as the foundation for the success of our nation.
I have done some digging around for these remarks, and I can reveal that, as a young boy in Newcastle, the senator was interested in playing war games and toy soldiers—there you go! Of course, he's also a very proud member of the Greek Australian community. His antecedents came from Cephalonia, and he's maintained a very strong link to the Sydney Greek community.
I just want to say, briefly, something on the personal side. It is sometimes a difficult thing to get into this business. As a new person in this place, I can say that no-one helped me more on the pastoral side than Senator Sinodinos. Whether it was writing a reference or giving me a call or seeing how I was going, he was always there for me. Every significant event I've held, as far as I can remember, Senator Sinodinos has been there for me, because he's always supported other people. It has been a selfless journey, and I think there is so much we can learn from his career of service at the Treasury, as chief of staff, as a minister and so much more to come. I'm so much looking forward to your contribution in Washington. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: I thank senators.
MOTIONS
Science
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:25): I move:
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.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (18:26): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: While there are some self-evident truths in this motion about the nature of science and research, if forced to a division, the coalition will oppose it on the basis that it also contains a great deal of conjecture and subjectivity.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:26): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator URQUHART: Labor will not be supporting this motion. This is a thinly veiled attack on climate scientists and established climate science. I would like to place on the record that Labor notes and celebrates peer-reviewed science as science, unlike Senator Roberts. We will develop our climate change policies and decide our targets in accordance with the science.
Question negatived.
BILLS
Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:27): At the request of Senator Hanson, I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to ensure the viability of Australia's dairy industry and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator ROBERTS: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:28): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I table an explanatory memorandum. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Farmers are selling their dairy herds and their properties in record numbers, because the economics of dairy farming has been undermined by milk processors and supermarkets charging $1 a litre for milk, much less than the cost of bottled water.
In 2011 Coles started selling milk at $1 a litre as a way of eliminating competition from local shops, where households traditionally would buy bread and milk. Shortly afterwards Woolworths matched Coles' price.
In 2014 the dairy industry put a submission to government in response to the Agricultural Competitiveness Issues Paper and said "It has been the firm position of Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) that the introduction of a mandatory Code of Conduct is necessary to balance the market power of the major retailers, along with the appointment of a Supermarket Ombudsman with teeth to oversee compliance with the Code, including significant financial penalties."
In 2018 the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) reported on the Australian dairy industry and made 8 recommendations, including that a mandatory code be introduced, but the government has not implemented one recommendation.
In short, the government has given billions of dollars of subsidies to foreign owned multinational solar and wind companies while not lifting a finger to help dairy farmers and the rural towns that depend on them.
In 1999 the dairy industry sought agreement from the State and Federal governments to remove laws governing the regulation of the industry. By 2000 the dairy industry was deregulated. Hopes were high for increased prices and increased milk product exports, but the promises made to dairy farmers did not eventuate. The dairy industry went into almost immediate decline, and that pattern has continued with the exception perhaps of Victoria.
One way to see the decline in the dairy industry is to look at the official statistics.
In 1999/2000 there were 12,896 dairy farms and 2,171,000 cows producing nearly 12 billion litres of fresh milk. Twenty years later, half the dairy farms operate with one third fewer cows and milk production is down to 8.7 million litres. Exports of dairy products have fallen and profitability has collapsed in the dairy industry.
The dairy industry warns us that we are in danger of losing access to fresh milk. Queensland and South Australia now import milk from Victoria, and in the future we face the likelihood of relying on imported milk powder. If dairy farmers continue to exit the industry we face the prospect of not being self-sufficient for fresh milk and milk based products.
Rationing of basic foods was implemented in the UK during World War II because they were not self-sufficient in dairy and other foods. We never want to lose food security.
The purpose of this Bill is to ensure the viability of what I believe to be an essential industry.
It is three minutes to midnight on this matter and the government is still sitting on its hands.
How can the government stand by and allow milk processors to use their market power and force dairy farmers to enter into multi-year unfair contracts, because there is no mandatory code in place?
How many more dairy farmers and rural towns have to suffer before the government will act to provide a fair playing field for dairy farmers?
The reality is that dairy producers are rushing to exit the industry as poor milk prices and high production costs contribute to the decline.
The government has burdened all of us, including dairy farmers, with high electricity prices because they picked wind turbines and solar panels over coal turbines.
If the government had applied the same market logic to the electricity sector as it has done to the dairy sector, then some dairy farmers might be staying on the land.
If the government had explained to the farming community the consequences of creating a water market where water goes to the highest value use, then dairy farmers might not have sold their water rights in an attempt to stay in the industry.
Whichever way you look the government has failed rural communities and in particular dairy farmers and the 42,000 people employed in the industry.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure the viability of the dairy industry through three measures. Firstly to task the ACCC with establishing a base or minimum price for the milk fat and protein content of milk produced on the farm. The second purpose is to ensure mandatory codes are implemented to deal with the imbalances between dairy farmers and milk processors and supermarkets. The third purpose is to require the Productivity Commission to inquire into whether a legislative regime to require divestiture by corporations should apply to the food and grocery industries to encourage greater competition.
Senator ROBERTS: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
(Quorum formed)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
The PRESIDENT (18:29): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, two proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
"Australian families struggling with prices rises well above inflation for household essentials such as electricity and health care whilst the Morrison Government has no plan to reverse an economy characterised by expectations of below trend economic growth forecasts, and stalled wages growth".
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (18:29): After six long years of the Liberals being in government what we have seen is that the Australian economy has slowed substantially. Australians are struggling under the lacklustre leadership of the Morrison government. The government was re-elected without a real plan for the country, and there is plenty of evidence to back up my statement.
We have seen wages growth at record lows. That's what we're seeing. That's what Australians are confronted with. Net debt has more than doubled and gross debt has crashed through the half-a-trillion-dollar mark under the watch of those opposite. We will have countless senators come in after me and talk about how wonderful the government is, but the reality is that Australians are struggling. Living standards have stagnated. We know that the wages growth they talked about has not eventuated.
We've now had the IMF talking about the economic growth slowdown. They are lining themselves up with what the Reserve Bank has already done by cutting interest rates. Even the Reserve Bank governor has called on this government, countless times, to stimulate the economy. But what response have they had? Nothing. This is because what Mr Morrison was interested in—his economic plan for the future of this country—was all about giving $80 billion to multinational companies and $17 billion as a handout to the Australian banks.
People in my home state of Tasmania are feeling it. There are families now, right across my state—and, I believe, right across this country—who are resorting to only having one meal a day because they can't make ends meet. We know we have a health crisis in this country—again, particularly in my home state—with cuts by this government and the Liberal state government.
What we have seen is people resorting to going to accident and emergency because they can no longer afford to see their GP—that is, if they can get in to see the GP. We've got thousands of Australians dropping out of their private health insurance because they can't afford the increases. These are issues confronting families day after day. We only have to look at people in receipt of Newstart allowance. I don't know how anyone on that side of the chamber—I know they're out of touch, and they probably don't speak to many people who are on Newstart in this country—can ever expect people to exist, let alone live, on $40 a day. It is not enough.
What have we seen from this government in stimulating the economy? We haven't seen anything at all. What we've seen is power prices escalating in this country. That's what we've seen. Look at how much money Tasmanian families are paying for their power bills—over $1,979 per year. The average wage in Tasmania is a lot less than what it is in the rest of the country. So a family that's bringing home $50,000 a year is paying four per cent of that money—after tax, I might add—to ensure they can put their lights on. We know right across this country, in regional and rural areas, that the lights have been switched off because people have not been able to afford their power bills. That's the reality of what's happening.
It's not about the delivery of speaking notes that the government are relying on, which they kindly submitted to all the media outlets this week. What they are doing is trying to put out spin, because the Prime Minister is the master of spin. What Australians are looking for is real leadership. They want to have electricity prices brought down. They want to be able to see a GP when they need to. They don't want to have to line up at accident and emergency, because we already have our hospitals in crisis. We want to see those people who want to work get the help that they need. What we need is more investment in TAFE so that our young people who can't get into university and want to get a trade can get an education and the skills they need to contribute to our economy. (Time expired)
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (18:35): I thank Senator Gallagher for bringing this MPI before us today, because for Labor it represents another own goal. MPI after MPI, question after question, the opposition are so bereft of ideas and inspiration for this nation that they continue to give us the opportunities to put on record our positive agenda for all Australians. I think I speak for all on this side in saying thank you very much indeed to those opposite.
This government is tackling cost-of-living pressures for Australian households, taking action to ease the strain in areas like tax, energy, housing and childcare costs. We are getting on with the job of implementing the plan that the Australian people voted for on 18 May. They voted for us to lower taxes so that they can keep more of what they earn. They voted to reduce the costs of doing business—reducing energy costs and fast-tracking deregulation. They voted to keep our budget strong and to guarantee the essential services that all of us rely upon. They voted for a higher standard of living and lower costs.
Labor may have changed their leader, but they haven't changed their policies. Australians will never forget the high-taxing, job-destroying, nation-weakening agenda that they took to the election. Labor are still the party of $387 billion of higher taxes—higher taxes on housing, higher taxes on superannuation, higher taxes on income, higher taxes on retirees and higher taxes on family businesses. Today, the AFR reports that Labor plan to create even more taxes to pay for their planned increase to Newstart. They're only interested in hitting Australians in the hip pocket, taking more of their hard-earned money so that they can create their version of a socialist utopia.
Whilst Australians were ultimately spared that fate, many in my home state of Western Australia are feeling the pressure of living under a Labor state government—a government that was elected saying one thing and is now doing the complete opposite. The McGowan government has slugged the people of Western Australia with household increases of $850 per year since being elected despite promising not to. They have targeted vulnerable families with increased charges and taxes, including a 10.9 per cent increase in the electricity supply charge in their first budget. The number of electricity disconnections for people who cannot afford to pay their electricity bill has gone up; it has reached a record 20,000. How did they respond? They cut the cost-of-living rebate for seniors and forced people in hardship to wait 180 days before they could receive Hardship Utility Grant Scheme payments. But wait, there's more. In their second budget, they increased by 40 per cent the cost of water consumption over 50,000 kilolitres per year. The Premier and his minister have tried to portray this as targeting the rich. However, the data clearly shows that it targets large families, multigenerational families and large properties in the outer suburbs—those who are doing it the toughest.
Under the McGowan state government, Western Australian families are struggling with high unemployment, falling house prices, the highest negative equity in the country and high levels of mortgage default. What happened to the plan for jobs which was going to deliver an employment bonanza of 50,000 jobs? I guess we'll never know. The McGowan government's mean-spirited cost-of-living increases come at a time when it is receiving a windfall gain of billions of dollars from the Morrison government's GST fix and high iron ore prices. Contrast this to the Liberal-National government's record on economic management and its remarkable achievement. Australia has completed its 28th consecutive year of annual economic growth. The people of Western Australia are acutely aware of what it's like to live under a Labor government. So, before those opposite come in here and lecture us, they should look at their own side first.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:40): I rise to contribute to the debate on this matter of public importance. Wage growth has stalled considerably. Significantly, from 2008 to 2013 it was growing by an average of 3.3 per cent per annum. From 2013 to 2018 it was growing by an average of 2.2 per cent per annum. To put this into perspective, the CPI growth in 2018 was 2.1 per cent. This meant there was virtually no real wages growth last year. In fact, from 2010 to 2017 there was, on average, an increase of only 0.3 per cent in real wages. So much for this government's claims about being able to manage the economy! The government can stand there and try to claim that they are the economic managers and that they are pre-eminent in this space, yet we see these terrible statistics. The Gini coefficient, which measures economic inequality, has been increasing steadily and now stands at 0.337. We are one of the most unequal OECD countries in the world. In fact, it seems that we are rubbing shoulders with Greece, a country that is still recovering from a major recession.
My question is: what do families do with rising power prices when this government continues to invest and wants to invest in inefficient, carbon-polluting power instead of going for clean, renewable energy, which is the energy of the future and will help bring energy prices down? We are seeing one million Australians putting off seeing a doctor because they can't afford to. These are the real impacts of living without real wage growth. But then, with these rising prices, my major question is: what do people living in poverty do? In Anti-Poverty Week, I want to focus on those people. Of the three million people living in poverty, 740,000 are children. One of the major things the government, who claim to be good economic managers, could do is raise the rate of Newstart by at least $75 a week. You'd get an instant injection into the economy of up to $4 billion and 12,000 more jobs would be created—a lot of those in rural and regional areas. That is how we can help people meet the rising cost of living. That's how we can help people out of poverty.
Those struggling to make ends meet are having to go to places like Foodbank. At the beginning of Anti-Poverty Week, on the weekend, the Foodbank hunger report 2019 was launched. That report found that, over the past 12 months, the number of people seeking food relief increased by 22 per cent. Three in 10 food-insecure Australians are going a whole day without eating at least once a week. Single-parent households have the highest likelihood of experiencing food insecurity, at a rate of 47 per cent. Many of those affected are living in deep poverty. On average, they are $135 a week below the poverty line.
Senator Rennick: The cashless debit card will fix that.
Senator SIEWERT: I'll take the interjection from across the chamber. I was just told that the cashless debit card will fix that. How mistaken is this government! The cashless debit card punishes people and, in fact, takes away people's cash. It actually means they have less cash to spend—cash that would enable then to take advantage of second-hand goods or go to markets. Go out and talk to people who are trying to survive on the cashless debit card. It is punitive and it makes life harder. I've been out there. I've talked to a lot of people over the 12 years that income management has been going on in this country. If you'd been at the hearing on Monday night, you too would have heard about some of the impacts of the cashless debit card and the fact that income management in the Northern Territory has not met any of its objectives—not one!—and that's from an independent analysis. This government is failing to manage the economy for the people it is supposed to serve, and, in particular, those living in poverty.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (18:45): I rise today to speak on the reality of raising a family under the Morrison Liberal government. It comes as no surprise to me that the Labor members who have made a contribution, and Senator Siewert, are angry about the absolute ignorance that has been displayed by government senators around this issue. It is Anti-Poverty Week and the facts are frightening. I ask that they listen to the facts. It is not only the people on social security benefits who are finding it tough. It is the working families who are going to welfare agencies to get assistance with food. Surely that tells you something. Surely it does. The fact is that 13.2 per cent of Australians are living below the poverty line, many in deep poverty, which is classified as an average of $135 below the poverty line when that line is defined as 50 per cent of the median household income. You don't need these organisations, or business organisations, to tell you that not enough is being done by government, firstly, to create jobs and, secondly, to assist with the incomes of those who do not have jobs.
You're out there in your electorates and you have these people writing to you, knocking on your door, ringing you and emailing you and we have these glib remarks thrown across the chamber here, which just says to me that you're not interested. You're much more interested in media releases than in taking real action. That is what it tells me. Productivity Commission research finds that after 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth and prosperity the low income statistics have not changed, yet nine to 10 per cent of Australians are still defined as low income earners, which is the same figure as in 1992. For me, this was the most interesting thing that came out of question time today. We asked questions around the IMF slashing Australia's growth forecast but what we heard today lacked credibility. What we heard today was, 'We have a plan.' Well, the plan is not working. The IMF's forecast makes a mockery of the policies of the Morrison government. The fact is that confidence and growth are weak. The state of the economy is of genuine concern to everyday Australians, because they hear one thing from the government but they experience another. The Reserve Bank, industry, economists and so many sectors of society have told this government to fast-track infrastructure investment in order to generate jobs and economic activity. Have they been listened to? The answer, of course, is no. That is impacting so many families—
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Senator CAROL BROWN: I already just said. You're putting out media releases, but you're not actually doing anything. Please, listen. The fact that the government isn't listening is impacting on so many families and individuals in our communities—everyday Australians who are worried about wages, about a lack of work, about their children's education and about what will happen to them if they become ill. For every family in the country, the cost of essentials is skyrocketing. Electricity prices are increasing and child care has become unaffordable.
Australians are worried about the economy, but Mr Scott Morrison and the Liberals are pretending there is no problem. They have no plan and, regardless of whether they say they have a plan—as I've already said before—the plan is not working. They have no plan to deal with low wages and rising prices. They say they're concerned about wage theft. What do they do? They put out a discussion paper. This has been going on for years, but they put out a discussion paper. People getting ripped off, so what do they do? They put out a discussion paper. I hope they actually do something around wage theft. It's extraordinary that they haven't moved more quickly, but I hope that sometime they actually will do something that's tangible, that's practical and that will help. But they certainly do not have a coherent plan for our country.
Who said, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go'? Who said that? It's a slogan. It's the slogan from the Prime Minister, but he and his government steadfastly refuse to take any action to make 'having a go' work for too many Australians. Those having a go are applying for jobs that do not exist and are being pushed into poverty and despair under the Morrison government. These are facts. No matter how hard they work to get a job, the effort required to apply for a job, let alone 20 a month, while trying to stay fed, have a roof over their head and take care of their family is 'having a go'. And they deserve respect. Every day in question time we don't see that. There is no respect from the government to those people having a go.
Mr Morrison also says the best form of welfare is a job—that is, not only Mr Morrison but the rest of them. But what job, Mr Morrison? Anglicare's report Job availability snapshot 2019shows that having a go is pointless when there are not enough jobs in existence. Kasy Chambers, the Executive Director of Anglicare Australia, said:
Our system is failing those who need the most help to find work. Our research shows that at least five of these jobseekers are competing for each job at their level. There aren't enough jobs at this skill level to meet demand in any part of the country.
… … …
The situation is toughest in South Australia and—
in my home state of—
Tasmania. In South Australia, nine of these jobseekers are competing for each suitable job. And in Tasmania, a staggering 14 jobseekers are competing for each one of these jobs.
What does that mean? Let's look at if you lose your job later in life and have a family. Where do you turn to pay your mortgage? As we know, rental prices are skyrocketing and power prices are through the roof, while Newstart has had no meaningful increase in 20 years.
Senator Rennick: It's indexed twice a year.
Senator CAROL BROWN: Goodness gracious me! Is that the best he's got? The Anglicare report I mentioned also states that, across the nation, Centrelink and jobactive network have suspended payments for 580,000 people for not trying hard enough to land a job. Kasy Chambers said:
But our research shows the jobs just aren't there.
So, by any measure, the government have failed. They are full of slogans, but that's not going to help Australian families. They are doing it tough. I haven't even got enough time to talk about Foodbank or Loaves and Fishes— (Time expired)
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (18:55): Here are the facts. State governments run energy. It beggars belief that you could come into this chamber and try and blame the federal government for what is the responsibility of the state government. It's not rocket science. Read the Constitution. Let me tell you something. This is how it works. The swing state in energy, like it is with the economy, like it is with elections, is Queensland. Queensland has power capacity of 14 gigawatts, yet we use only 10 gigawatts. What that means is that the extra four gigawatts goes around the rest of the contrary.
On the cost, just last week a private industry decided that they're going to spend $350 million on creating a new solar wind farm in Queensland. That is a white elephant, because we don't need the energy. We've already got the energy. Any energy that's brought onto the system is going to have to go down to New South Wales or the south side, South Australia. The problem with that is that there's only a one-gigawatt transmission line. We already have four gigawatts of excess transmission, so why on earth would you go and build more renewable energy sources when there's no need for it? Why would you do that?
What makes this even worse is that the Queensland state Labor government think this is fantastic. They're trying to kill their own business. You see, Queenslanders know not to sell their power assets. They swear by their coal-powered power stations, as Labor found out, to their detriment, at the last federal election. Their own state government wants to destroy the power assets of the people of Queensland. The Queensland state Labor government is boasting about going to 50 per cent renewable energy. They want to destroy the very asset that belongs to the Queensland people. This $325 million investment is going to have to be absorbed through higher energy prices. It's not that hard to understand. We have an overinvestment in renewables—
Senator Carol Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I think the senator misunderstands what the actual MPI is about, because he's certainly not talking about families.
Senator RENNICK: With respect, that's not a valid point of order and I'm sure you can recognise that.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Griff ): I don't consider it to be a point of order on relevance in this particular instance.
Senator RENNICK: Of course I'm talking about families. Families have power bills. It's not rocket science. They have power bills that come to them from the Queensland state government. Let's look at what the Queensland state government did last year. They gouged an extra $269 million out of their energy assets—an increase of 26.7 per cent. I'm going to repeat that again, just so Hansard gets it: an extra $269 million. Annastacia Palaszczuk and Jackie Trad are gouging the Queensland people. Unbelievable. And they want to make matters worse, because now they've brought the closure of Callide B power station in Biloela forward by 10 years. This is alarming, because that power station helps power one of Queensland's industrial powerhouses: Gladstone. If Gladstone goes, Queensland goes. If Queensland goes, Australia goes. How dare you jeopardise the town of Gladstone, a major manufacturing hub in this country! One of the great works of Leo Hielscher and the Bjelke-Petersen government was setting up the Yarwun alumina refinery using their own bauxite up in Weipa and creating jobs for regional Queensland. And that is now under jeopardy.
But let's get onto health costs and the blowout of Queensland Health. I wonder why that is? Let me see. The cost of the blowout and the cost of the Sunshine Coast hospital—
Senator Carol Brown interjecting—
Senator SCARR: And how did that happen? The unions gouged all that money, just like they're now doing with the casino. They're going to knock off work when it gets hotter than 28 degrees. Fancy knocking off work when it gets hotter than 28 degrees in Queensland—unbelievable! In the last five years, the federal coalition government has funded Queensland Health by an extra $1.6 billion, and where does that money go? It certainly hasn't decreased waiting lists, has it? It hasn't decreased ambulance waiting lists. It hasn't decreased— (Time expired)
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:00): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to respond to Senator Gallagher's matter of public importance motion today. Senator Gallagher has raised a real concern for all Australians, yet she has not identified the real problem nor offered a real solution. If we are going to address these real problems for all Australians, then it is time we give up what created the current mess—the old ways of the Liberal-National and Labor, Greens parties. We need real change. Labor, Greens and the Liberal-National parties are letting Australians down, and we are all paying for the Lib-Lab duopoly's lack of vision. In this very chamber today, the Lib-Lab duopoly let multinational petroleum companies mine and export our gas resources without these mega-rich companies paying anything like their fair share of tax. The Liberal-Labor duopoly let multinationals, the world's biggest tax avoiders, off the hook again.
This decision by the Morrison government means that everyday Australians will have to make up for the lost revenues that the government and Labor have given away repeatedly in tax measures. Australians could now be paying less tax or receiving improved services if the Lib-Lab duopoly had ensured that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. This Lib-Lab duopoly has contributed to Australians paying higher costs for essentials, like food, water, phone, internet, electricity, health care, aged care, transport and tolls, and much more. This government is hitting Australians where it hurts.
I do agree with Senator Gallagher that the Morrison government has no plan and no vision to help everyday Australians, and what we need is change. Years of economic mismanagement and of doing what the Prime Minister's unseen and unaccountable international bureaucracies want has harmed the economic fabric and stability of our great nation—that foreign bureaucracy that's ceded our sovereignty to them. No more building facades please. No more false talk. It is time for real plans and real reform. It's time for the Morrison government to stop trying to look good and instead do good. (Time expired)
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (19:03): I'm grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to a debate on a set of topics that are so crucially important to millions of Australians, particularly those who find themselves struggling to make ends meet due to the low wage growth and the rising cost of living under this government. This is a government with its head firmly in the sand. This is a government that has no plan for wages, no plan to tackle the cost of living, no plan for our faltering economy. This is a government that continues to sing its own praises and say, 'Everything is fine; everything's okay,' when, clearly, it is not. In fact, I think they've said, 'Everything is just fine,' so many times they're genuinely starting to believe it themselves. But nobody else believes them.
Today, the IMF added themselves to the long line of economists that are concerned about Australia's slow economic growth. Their substantial downgrade of Australian economic growth forecasts—the second downgrade for Australia this year—is a damning assessment of the Treasurer's claim that the government is implementing just the right economic policies for our country. Only on Monday we had Deloitte reporting that many of the problems and weaknesses we have in the Australian economy are homegrown problems. Even before that, the Reserve Bank was making similar points. In other words, our problems are the government's own doing. The IMF—amongst a host of other organisations, including state governments—have called on the government to provide fiscal stimulus urgently and immediately and invest in infrastructure to boost our economy. But, despite falling consumer confidence and growth that is expected to be slower than that of either Spain or Greece, we see no action from the government. We should not underestimate the importance of these forecasts. The IMF are ringing the alarm bells, and they are ringing them loudly. We should listen.
This government has presided over—and let's make sure we all hear this—the following record: the slowest economic growth since the financial crisis, declining living standards, household debt at record highs, 1.9 million Australians who are looking for work or more work, business investment that is the lowest since the 1990s, declining productivity, wages that are growing at one-sixth the pace of profits and a doubling of gross national debt. What a stellar record! Can the government really be proud of this? Can they really get away with telling us, 'Everything's okay, it's under control, we've got a plan'? It seems to me that wherever you look there are economic weaknesses that are not being dealt with, homegrown problems this government won't admit to and issues that are being ignored.
This is not good news for Australians who are desperate for a pay rise. People need to be respected for their hard work in their pay packets, and they need to earn enough to live, but annual wage growth has not topped 2½ per cent since before December 2014 and in the most recent figures was at only 2.3 per cent. This government has one of the worst records on wage growth from any government in our nation's history. Surely a core responsibility of any government is to make sure people have good, secure jobs with decent wages, yet this government has no apparent plans to get wages moving again.
Who will pay for their failures? It will be hardworking Australians—Australians who are increasingly feeling the pinch because, while their wages are flat, the cost of everything else just keeps going up. Cost of child care—up. Cost of housing—up. Cost of health care—up. Cost of education—up. Cost of food—up. Cost of energy—up. Cost of transport—up. Wage growth—flat. This is a recipe for a family's struggle to make ends meet.
Earlier this week, we saw the release of Foodbank's hunger report for 2019. It reported that more than one in five Australians, or 21 per cent, experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. That's one in five Australians experiencing food insecurity in this country in the last 12 months. That includes over one million children. Can you imagine not having enough money to provide food for your children? That is what is happening in Australia today under this government. Telling her story for the report, a single mother from Perth said:
After I pay rent and electricity, I'm left with hardly any money to buy food. I've gone days with no food just so my son can eat.
Another woman shared her story from Victoria and said:
I hate that I can't cook proper meals and sit and eat with my child. She always asks why I'm not eating with her, but we don't always have enough for both of us to eat. I'd rather miss out, so she doesn't have to.
No-one should be in that situation in this country. It turns out that the most common reason for people going hungry in Australia is an unexpected bill or an unexpected expense that they just don't have the income to meet. This is what happens when your wage growth falls behind the cost of living—you end up just one pay cheque away from crisis.
In the last 12 months, there has been a 22 per cent increase in the number of people who are seeking food relief from charities. That is a huge increase, and it points directly at the growing cost-of-living crisis that this government has overseen. I would genuinely advise everyone in this chamber to spend some time this week, which is Anti-Poverty Week, sitting down and reading the Foodbank hunger report 2019. It is shocking. It's upsetting. It's inexcusable. It is these Australians that this government, with its lack of action on stagnant wage growth and on the rising cost of living, is letting down.
It's time that this government actually did some work. We need it to bring forward a real plan to deal with our faltering economy. Let's give the government some ideas, because they don't seem to have too many of their own. They could start by raising Newstart. They could bring forward their infrastructure investments. They could reverse the penalty rate cuts that impacted so many low-paid workers in this country. They could create good, secure jobs and, instead of attacking the role of the trade union movement in this country, they could support the role of unions in our society and in our economy in helping to generate and stimulate wage growth.
But this is a government that loves to give us all a lecture about just how well it is doing and what great economic managers it has. But its talking points just couldn't be further from the truth. What we know from all of the research and all of the reports that have just come out and from all of the conversations that we're having with people who are struggling around Australia is that people are in real trouble in our country today. Wages are going nowhere. We have the lowest wage growth on record. The economy is faltering—both the IMF and Deloitte have told us that this week—and this government just doesn't have a plan to sort it out.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (19:12): I seek leave to give notice of a motion concerning the hours of meeting on Remembrance Day.
Leave granted.
Senator HUME: I lodge the motion.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
Consideration resumed.
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (19:13): I must say from the outset that I often look across the chamber and think to myself, 'It must be very difficult being in their shoes.' On one hand, they need to come to this place every day and find something to fill the time and give an indication to their supporters back home that they're working hard and contributing something. But, on the other hand, they are faced every day with a government that is continuing to implement its economic plan and is continuing to implement its responsible budget management strategy, which has, of course, returned the budget to balance for the first time in 11 years. So every sitting day we assemble in this place and we listen to that which emerges from across the chamber and, in all honesty, it simply sounds to me like white noise.
Now, white noise, in case you're not familiar with it, is the noise a television makes when it's not properly adjusted. It's a rattling and hissing noise which, in truth, is indicative of a television which is not tuned in properly. It is not tuned into the correct station and is, therefore, simply hissing and shaking in a fairly indiscriminate manner. And then it dawned on me: this is precisely what we see every day from the Labor Party in this chamber—fiction and white noise. We have white noise from the Australian Labor Party, a party which we expect to have failed to have properly read the electorate and which we now expect to have failed to understand the issues which are foremost in the minds of Australians. We saw that at the last election, when the Australian people were given a choice. They were given a choice between a government with a plan—a plan which we have said foresaw the challenges that Australia was going to face, which foresaw a period of global economic headwinds—and the Labor Party, who took a plan to rip the life out of the Australian economy by skimming $387 billion worth of taxes out of hardworking Australians' hands.
The Labor Party may well have changed leaders but, rest assured, they certainly haven't changed their policy. It's still the policy of the Labor Party to inflict $387 billion of higher taxes—taxes on housing, taxes on superannuation, taxes on income, taxes on retirees and taxes on family businesses. How does that help the economy? How does that help people? Perhaps someone inside the Labor Party should have asked that question before this matter of public importance came to the Senate this afternoon.
The people of Australia saw through Labor's charade and elected the Morrison government. The government is now diligently getting on with implementing its plan and overseeing an economy that is continuing to grow and continuing to provide Australians with opportunity. In one sense it's opportune that we get to talk about this because ours is a story that relies on facts, not fiction. So let's look at the real issues and some actual facts.
In relation to the economy, it's a fact that Australia has completed its 28th year of consecutive annual growth despite the challenges of the ongoing international trade tensions, the housing market downturn and the persistent effects of weather conditions on the rural sector. It's a fact that the Australian economy grew by 0.5 per cent in the June quarter and 1.4 per cent throughout the year. It's a fact that the labour market conditions continue to be good. Throughout the year, to August 2019, employment grew by 2.5 per cent and the participation rate increased to a record high of 66.2 per cent. It is a fact that this government has delivered more than 1.4 million jobs since 2013, which is in the order of 240,000 a year compared with just 155,000 under Labor. It's also a fact that this country now enjoys the lowest proportion of working-age people on welfare in 30 years. Finally, it's a fact that nominal GDP increased by 1.2 per cent in the June quarter. The government is tackling cost-of-living pressures for Australian households, taking action to ease the strain in areas like tax, energy, housing and childcare costs. Once again, these are facts.
The government has more than doubled the low and middle income tax offset, supporting consumption growth, easing cost-of-living pressures and helping to build a stronger economy. The government has implemented the majority of measures announced in the 'Reducing pressure on housing affordability' 2017-18 budget package. The government has also introduced the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which assists those trying to get into the property market to save for a deposit for a first home, inside their superannuation fund, by making voluntary contributions. Then we have the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which will also enable eligible first home buyers to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent, allowing them to get into the market earlier and without incurring the additional costs of lenders mortgage insurance.
The scheme complements other measures the government has taken to reduce pressure on housing affordability in Australia and support local communities. In the past year, more than 110,000 Australians bought their first home—the highest since 2009. These are facts. The Morrison government is determined to assist all Australians to realise their hopes, their dreams and their aspirations when it comes to working hard and owning their own home.
The government has also accepted a significant number of the ACCC retail electricity pricing inquiry recommendations as part of a package of measures to put downward pressure on electricity prices. We're already seeing those results. The ABS has found that power prices fell 1.7 per cent nationally in the June quarter. The government's childcare package, which commenced on 2 July 2018, provides more support for families who need it the most.
These are but a select few of the achievements of the government, as I'm only afforded a short period of time—but I can assure you, Madam Acting Deputy President Brown, that I could go on and on. We should also consider some proper facts regarding wage growth. Wages as measured by the wage prices index rose by 2.3 per cent throughout the year to the June quarter of 2019. Wage growth will be supported by key drivers of wages such as the capacity in the labour market and labour productivity. Wage growth is expected to rise in through-the-year terms to 2¾ per cent to June 2020 and 3¼ per cent to June 2021. In the years to come, wage growth is projected— (Time expired)
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ) (19:20): It being 7.20 pm, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Sutton, Marie Elizabeth
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (19:20): Sometimes you're lucky to meet someone who changes your life for the better, whose kindness, generosity and love puts a new spin on everything. That person for me was Marie Sutton—always a Moree girl whether she was in Singleton or Darling Point. Mars, as we knew her, left this world a much better place than she found it, if not far too soon. We said our final goodbyes to her just two weeks ago.
Marie was a loving wife to Bill, a proud mother to Tim—my friend from school—and most fiercely delighted by her granddaughter, Harriet. She was one of the best friends anyone could ever hope for, and just one of her enduring legacies is a group of women that I'm lucky to call friends. She would never accept a no in getting us together. We all understand that she did it for a reason. We're all in this together now to provide each other with the love and support that Marie gave to us. It's for all of them—for Julie Singleton, Marie Simone, Gordy Willesee and Elizabeth Sinodinos—that I rise tonight to pay tribute to our friend Mars, who was known as the woman who brought Princess Diana to Australia for her beloved St Vincent's and Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute. Whilst there was so much more to Mars, this extraordinary act encapsulated her attitude of getting on with the job.
As Jules said in her eulogy, to Marie there was no such thing as 'it can't be done'. So when she decided that Princess Diana was the perfect person to host the Victor Chang ball, she took no notice of being told that there was royal protocol to go through and that it would be impossible. Marie simply picked up the phone, called the palace and left a message for Diana, who of course called her back. In what would've seemed daunting to most of us, Mars took the call as casually as picking up the phone to any of her girlfriends. When Princess Diana said to her that she would love to come to Sydney but Mars needed to understand the difficulties of the arrangements—she was a royal and there would be complexities to the plan—Marie simply replied, 'Darling, I have been a princess all of my life, so I completely understand.'
Mars was a tireless fundraiser and loved her charities across a range of areas. I was particularly grateful for her support of autism, but she always had a special affection for St Vincent's, having trained and worked as a nurse. You could often find Marie visiting those who were unwell, or making calls on their behalf to try and get them access to whoever she deemed was the most appropriate and best specialist.
Mars never thought twice about asking for support for her causes—auction items or even the venues themselves. When Mars asked, she received. I have no doubt that there are a number of businesses in Double Bay who will now see a sharp reduction in requests to make donations!
Mars was glamorous in a way rarely seen. She would have been proud of the attendees at her funeral, where not only did Father Tony Doherty come out of retirement to celebrate her life but Gordy removed her nose ring. Haircuts, blow-dries and new outfits were the order of the day, out of respect for Mars, and I knew there was no way that I could mourn her in aviators!
A long lunch was a staple of Mars's diary. Poor Bill would be told by her that she was staying home for the day—but then she'd get a better offer at the Woolloomooloo wharf and off she'd go. Whilst many of those friends were there to celebrate her life, there were also friends from Singleton and her long-suffering cobbler from Double Bay, who tried in vain to get her out of her six-inch heels!
Marie was also a stalwart Liberal supporter. The only time you would ever see Mars in a T-shirt was on election day, which she would always dutifully volunteer for. Mars never doubted for a second that the Prime Minister would be re-elected. Her faith was unwavering. In the weeks before the election, she'd been ill. She was in hospital when she called Julie to see what time she'd be picking her up to be at the polling booth on the weekend, volunteering to hand out how-to-votes for Dave Sharma. Jules made the error of trying to get Mars to stay in hospital. She was sternly told, 'If everyone has your attitude, we'll lose. Whilst I have breath in my body, the Labor Party will not get in.' Mars escaped from the hospital and she was there on election day to hand out. She was my guest that night in the VIP room. A memory I'll treasure forever: she was there with me when I was elected and when Scott Morrison was re-elected.
I think Marie's belief in the freedom to speak your mind also included calling her friends several times a day—sometimes at midnight, as she was nocturnal, or even later when the tennis was on, which she loved watching. Whilst Jules would get calls critiquing outfits at Wimbledon, I was more likely to get a 'Sky after dark' report—something I dare say Mars watched a little too much of! When you missed or dared not to answer one of Marie's calls, there would be follow-ups or repercussions. I miss the messages. 'Hols, darling, it's Mars. Give me a call when you have five.' I'd always ensure I had closer to an hour. I know this is what we're all missing so much right now, and we'll always miss Mars. We're all poorer for her loss. You only get one Marie Sutton. (Time expired)
Anti-Poverty Week
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (19:26): There are more than 131,000 South Australians living below the poverty line and more than 22,000 of them are children. This week is Anti-Poverty Week—a time when we should all turn our attention to fixing these shocking statistics. Australia continues to move backwards when it comes to poverty and inequality. After 20 years of economic growth, the number of people in poverty is increasing at alarming rates and pushing our nation further backwards. A report released by the Australian Council of Social Service and the University of New South Wales in 2018 showed that more than one in eight Australians, or 13.2 per cent, were living below the poverty line. Disturbingly, the report tells us that the poverty rate among children is much higher, with one in six living below the poverty line, or 17.3 per cent of all children. And for single-parent families the situation is even worse, with 17.6 per cent of those families living below the poverty line.
In my home state of South Australia, living outside of our capital city, Adelaide, makes it twice as likely that you live in poverty. All of this is in a country where we are told, 'If you have a go, you get a go.' But do you really? The reality is that Australia is becoming less fair, especially for the next generation. Underneath all of the statistics is a series of policy decisions that have made poverty worse—decisions like cutting penalty rates, cutting family payments, refusing to lift the rate of Newstart, attacking Medicare and the universality of our healthcare system, and taking away penalty rates—payments that ensure that working Australians can have a quality standard of living and a liveable wage. These policy choices have made it harder and harder for struggling Australians to make ends meet.
These policy decisions have failed my home state of South Australia more than any other, because South Australia, sadly, has the highest rate of poverty in comparison to all other jurisdictions. Labour force figures recently released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that underemployment is far too high and too many Australians are in insecure work, hamstrung by stagnant wages. They also showed that South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in the country, at 7.3 per cent. While costs are going up, wages aren't, and South Australians are earning less than people from most other states and well below the national average. I believe the people of my state deserve better. So much more needs to be done to address the unacceptable rates of poverty and inequality in Australia. Where better to start than with Newstart?
Labor accepts that the rate of Newstart is too low and it must increase, because Newstart has not increased in real terms for more than 25 years, leaving over 1.8 million unemployed and underemployed Australians struggling daily to get by. Deloitte Access Economics tells us that a person living on Newstart lives on just 36 per cent of the average wage after tax. It is just not enough to cover the essentials: a roof over your head, food, water, energy and transport. Without these things, how can an individual ever exit the cycle of poverty? Newstart is so low that it's acting as a barrier to people finding work and breaking free of poverty. Too many people living on Newstart are facing very real hardship, and the government's inaction is utterly unacceptable. With analysis confirming that 75 per cent of Australians support an increase to Newstart, including former Prime Minister John Howard and the BCA, the Prime Minister and his government are out of excuses. Australians on Newstart are real people in our community who have to grapple with the realities of poverty every single day. Poverty affects individuals' access to health, housing, education, employment and social participation. In a vicious circle, poor outcomes in these areas then impact on their ability to earn an income. Raising the rate of Newstart will give recipients a better chance to break out of poverty and into the dignity of work.
Of course, it's not just a social policy issue; it's an economic one. An increase would provide the stimulus that our economy, especially in South Australia—and especially in our regions—so desperately needs, because, despite what the government tells us, we know that our national economy is not in good shape. Wages are stagnating, we're experiencing the lowest rate of economic growth in 10 years, and costs on almost everything are going up. The government doesn't seem to have any plan to deliver economic growth, with the recent interest rate cut confirming that. Instead of increasing Newstart, which would not only help people doing it tough but deliver immediate and significant economic stimulus, they are, instead, spending their time stigmatising and demeaning welfare recipients. Nineteen thousand rural and regional South Australians would benefit from an increase, and it would be a huge stimulus in regional and rural South Australia. Given that it's Anti-Poverty Week, I think now is the time to commit to increasing Newstart.
Climate Change
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (19:31): Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his government are doing extraordinary damage to Australia and are threatening our future every single day. A year ago I said that it was more and more obvious that the Prime Minister was trying to reinvent himself as a mini-Trump. If there was any doubt then, it is now absolutely clear that Mr Morrison has completed the transformation. These days there's not a shred of space between Trump and Morrison on the issues that matter.
Mr Morrison departed from international consensus and betrayed the Palestinian people by trying to move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. He has pledged to send Australian troops to join Trump's dangerous intervention in the Strait of Hormuz. He used a state visit to America to introduce Australian mining billionaires to Trump and gawk at the Maccas drive-through screen while other world leaders gathered to discuss the climate crisis. On his return, we saw Mr Morrison parroting Trump's antiglobalist rhetoric to distract from his criminal inaction on the climate crisis. In a speech to the Lowy Institute, the Prime Minister warned of the supposedly unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy that, along with negative globalism, must be avoided. This is language straight out of One Nation's conspiracy theory playbook. I can only imagine that it made Senator Roberts incredibly proud. Of course, the speech was a distraction intended to draw our attention and that of the media away from the UN Climate Summit and the student-led climate strikes that were sweeping the globe.
Like no other issue, the climate crisis lays bare the abject failure of the Morrison government and their wish to be the Southern Hemisphere's arm of the Trump administration. The arctic and the Amazon are burning, glaciers are melting, and a heatwave is ravaging Greenland. Globally, thousands of workers have already been killed by worsening global heatwaves. We know that millions more will meet the same terrible fate. At home we're experiencing increasing, frequent and intense natural disasters, watching the extinction of species and witnessing the death of our precious ecosystems and habitat.
At this time of the crisis of climate collapse and rampant capitalism, when we need to reimagine a society that isn't predicated on endless, unsustainable, planet-killing economic growth, where is Scott Morrison? He is misleading the Australian people about our emissions. In talking points the bumbling government accidentally sent to journalists just this week, Liberal and National MPs were instructed to repeat the lie that they are taking meaningful action to reduce global emissions. The truth is that emissions rose in four out of the past five years. Experts agree that Australia won't meet its Paris agreement targets, and what little action the government are taking is a pathetic excuse for the actions that we really need. None of this is surprising from a man who not only brought a hunk of coal into parliament; he brought the coal lobby right into his inner circle by appointing a former deputy CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia and Rio Tinto's lead lobbyist as his chief of staff.
What a victory for the fossil fuel lobby in their long-term project to stockpile profits while the planet burns. The likes of Exxon and Shell lied about the effects of carbon pollution in the eighties. The fossil fuel industry has waged a decades-long misinformation campaign to prevent climate action. Now the polluters have all the influence they need to prevent any meaningful action whatsoever. It is no wonder Mr Morrison and his mates are doing everything they can to protect the profits of the powerful over the interests of the community.
Make no mistake, millions of lives depend on our response to the climate crisis. We cannot begin to count the futures stolen by the climate crisis, the dreams crushed, decades before they could be dreamt, and the generations deprived of the opportunity to live a dignified life. Scott Morrison and co are perpetrating an intergenerational theft so enormous that it wouldn't be believable were we not witnessing it with our own eyes.
In recent months I've met with climate strikers, residents in coal communities and activists, and their message is simple. We will not be daunted by the Prime Minister and his climate-denying mates. We will not let you stand in the way of our futures. We will take the radical action needed to steer a course through the climate crisis and towards a future where we all have the opportunity and the means to live a dignified life.
GetUp!
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (19:36): GetUp!'s attempt to rehabilitate its self-besmirched reputation at the National Press Club today failed—failed badly. Why? Because the facts speak so much better than its empty rhetoric. Rather than apologising for their tactics, GetUp! foolishly doubled down and sent out the architect of their flawed campaign to try to justify the unjustifiable. The self-serving claim that GetUp! is built on ordinary people taking action on issues they care about is hollow. Did GetUp! members actually urge GetUp! to develop and run advertisements that were demonstrably untrue, ugly, nasty and in such poor taste that GetUp! was shamed into dropping them? Of course not. They were advertisements that falsely claimed that a person who had saved another person's life would sit idly by and watch someone drown. No, ordinary decent people don't do such things, but GetUp! did. Or the advertisement against the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg—not supporter-initiated, I'm sure. Ordinary decent people don't seek to so deceive.
Who can forget the ugliness, the nastiness, the politics of division and denigration in which GetUp! wallowed, spending thousands of dollars of their so-called members' money? Shamelessly, the National Press Club was told that GetUp! asks, 'Does the campaign resonate with people's lives?', each time they run a campaign. Really? Did the false allegations against Mr Frydenberg really resonate with people's lives? I'd like to see the membership feedback on that one. Or did the campaign against Mr Dutton so resonate that his margin actually increased? GetUp! takes the Australian people as mugs, to be manipulated.
Next, GetUp! falsely asserted to the National Press Club that the Australian Electoral Commission had confirmed their political independence. That is simply false—it's not the role of the AEC to make such a finding. When I asked the AEC about this claim they said it was not their role and denied making such a claim. Nevertheless, it didn't stop GetUp! from saying exactly that at the National Press Club here today. They repeated the falsehood in front of the nation's media and, shamefully, did so without any hesitation. To take some political licence is one thing but to verbal an independent statutory authority confirms that there are no boundaries, no codes, no ethics for GetUp! For them, their self-determined correctness justifies any course of action.
But the deceit doesn't end there. GetUp! claimed they didn't just campaign against the Liberal Party. Tellingly, no mention was made of any House of Representatives members, other than Liberals, against whom they campaigned—because they couldn't. Who could forget GetUp!'s phone canvassing in Longman asking voters to put the Liberals last, thus proffering a white supremacist and convicted criminal? Yet they claim they don't only campaign against Liberals. Who can forget the campaign against Nicolle Flint? Even Labor luminaries are cringing at the GetUp! tactics and antics turning off decent Australians. When GetUp! isn't officially amending its objectives to falsely claim it's a charity and then, when exposed, saying it was an administrative error, GetUp! is claiming it has unusual levels of transparency. I agree with this. Its level is highly unusual, as is shown by listing all its important decision-makers in schedule 1 of its constitution; however, schedule 1 remained blank and empty at all times until it was finally taken out of its constitution—so much for transparency.
This time around in this election, despite spending literally millions of dollars, the people rejected the GetUp! tactics of deceit. Having spent millions themselves, they decried others that had spent millions as well. Like Clive Palmer, GetUp! can spend millions in our democracy on a campaign. But just as much as they were a wake-up to Clive Palmer as a result of the 2013 election, so too were the Australian people a wake-up to GetUp! as a result of the 2016 election. Might I finish by saying that exposing the slipperiness of GetUp! is not about trying to silence opponents or subvert democracy; it's about informing people. Once informed, they rejected GetUp! (Time expired)
Palliative Care Tasmania
Pancreatic Cancer
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (19:41): Just before I begin tonight, I'd like to acknowledge in this gallery, at this late hour of 20 to eight, Colleen Johnson and Sharon King from Palliative Care Tasmania. They've been meeting with me today. They've got some meetings with other people as well as me again tomorrow. Thanks for the great work you do. I really appreciate it. As you know, I've talked many times in the chamber on Palliative Care Tasmania and their funding issues. I will continue to push to make sure you get some more funding.
Sophia Cartwright was living a full, happy and adventurous life with her adoring husband and young family when she received the devastating diagnosis of terminal metastatic pancreatic cancer. Sophie Cartwright was just 50; her beautiful daughters were just eight and 10 years old. She was described by her friends as kind, funny and generous, with a smile that lit up any room. Everyone described Sophia as lively, but, like thousands of Australians every year, her life was to be taken from her quickly and brutally by this most insidious and misunderstood cancer.
Sophia's plight sounds like something from decades ago, from a time when diagnosis of cancer was effectively a death sentence, but this story is quite recent. Sophia died in February this year, 20 months after receiving her diagnosis. An Australian diagnosed with breast cancer today has a 92 percent chance of surviving five years from now. An Australian diagnosed with prostate cancer today has an even better prognosis, with a 95 percent chance that they would be living a full life in five years time. Even Australians diagnosed with melanoma, the cancer we've all learned to be particularly terrified of and guarded against, have better than a 90 percent chance of continuing to live healthily for five years or more. So what happened to Sophia?
Sophia's cancer was in her pancreas, so her chances of survival were dismal. Despite being better than the world average, the chance an Australian diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will survive more than five years is a mere 9.8 percent. Tragically, in addition to being very deadly, pancreatic cancer is quite common. In 2019, Cancer Australia's numbers show pancreatic cancer taking virtually the same number of Australian lives as breast cancer—that is, 3,051 versus 3,090, or about eight lives a day. How is this possible in a country like ours, with such advanced medicine?
The truth is that the wonderful advancements in survival for many of the cancers we hear so much about, and often contribute so much to, do not necessarily have any impact on other cancers. In the case of pancreatic cancer, there have been virtually no advancements in decades. It has traditionally missed both government funding and philanthropic research investment. Pancreatic cancer has been in the too-hard basket for as long as anyone can remember, or it had been until 11 years ago when the Avner Pancreatic Cancer Foundation was formed. This was the brainchild of Avner Nahmani, a pancreatic cancer patient who considered himself lucky to have had 13 months of life from the day of his diagnosis. Before losing his battle, Avner gathered together a tight group of friends and began the groundwork for the Avner Pancreatic Cancer Foundation, dedicated to improve the pancreatic cancer survival rate in Australia. As of today, the foundation has invested $7 million and funded 22 research programs across Australia, interrogating the most likely paths to improve survival rates, alongside some very promising but less conventional approaches. There is great progress and a real reason to be optimistic.
However, as these research programs reach the point that they can be taken into clinical trials, given the dearth of Australian government funding for pancreatic cancer research, they will hit a brick wall. This fantastic work carried out by brilliant researchers in our great public universities and medical institutions has been made possible by private funds. It has been an extraordinary story of progress, but all that progress will be for nothing if the Australian government does not provide the funding injection now needed.
As chair of the Senate select committee that inquired into funding for research into low-survival-rate cancers, I heard from many witnesses about the difficulties getting funding from the NHMRC for research projects that weren't already backed by private or philanthropic funds. As I've said many times before in relation to brain cancer, this isn't the way it should be. Research funding should be allocated where it has the best chance of saving lives. Initiatives like the low-survival-rate cancers and diseases grant opportunity have helped to tip the balance, but a lot more needs to be done. Adopting the committee's recommendation for a 10-year strategy for low-survival-rate cancers would also help give diseases like pancreatic cancer the research funding they need. Let's work towards a world where, for people like Sophia, a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is not a death sentence. (Time expired)
Health
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (19:46): Mid this year the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released its report on the burden of disease in Australia for the calendar year 2015. This report provided a sobering assessment of the impact of illness and death, and shows that Australia's population experienced the equivalent of 4.8 million lost years of life from illness, injury and premature death. The report calculated this using three measures of illness: the years of life lost, the years of life disability and the disability adjusted life years. The report showed that a massive 38 per cent of the disease burden experienced by Australians was preventable, and it very much could have been avoided by addressing risk factors such as tobacco use, being overweight or obese and dietary risk. The largest causes of lost years include heart disease, back pain, lung cancer, non-cancer related lung diseases and dementia. Mental ill-health is also very much a heavy burden.
Lung cancer caused an overall greater burden compared to other cancers, yet we know it receives less than five per cent of cancer research funding. The government has failed, to date, in bringing forward disease management plans to address the lung cancer issue and provide an integrated, community based approach. Non cigarette related lung cancer is increasing even though smoking rates are declining. It affects both sexes equally and has very much a poor prognosis. Yet there is minimal funding being applied to research into the causes and treatment of such cancers.
Age-related rates for years lost have improved only in groups aged above 80. Despite all our health expenditure, we have still not really shifted the number of lost years for anyone under 79. Australians living in remote and very remote parts of Australia bear 1.4 times higher loss of years due to disease and death compared to their major city counterparts. Why is it that in 2019 we're still unable to provide equitable health services for our remote and very remote populations?
The standards of health care and the poor outcomes in our Indigenous population are a stain on our national character. A shameful example of this is the catastrophic rates of rheumatic heart disease in the Northern Territory. We know that, in the four years to 2017, fully 1,700 of the 1,800 cases of rheumatic heart disease have occurred in our Indigenous population. Rheumatic heart disease is a disease of poverty and overcrowding, which allows infections such as strep A to take hold. The NT has the highest rate of severe overcrowding, with over 40 per cent of Indigenous Australians living in severely overcrowded households. The damaging effects of rheumatic heart disease on the heart valves of Indigenous children aged five to 15 means that, once diagnosed, they need monthly injections of painful antibiotics given intramuscularly until they are adults. Later they require complex heart surgery, because their heart function was compromised. It also means they have a life expectancy of only 40, which is less than half the Australian average.
This is very much a public health problem caused by overcrowding, poor sanitation and a lack of access to good medical care. The number of lost years amongst the poorest 20 per cent of Australia's population was 1.5 times that of the wealthiest. This means that fully one-third of the lost years of productive life could have been avoided if the poorest had the same health outcomes as the wealthiest. Can we call ourselves an egalitarian society when the socioeconomic class you were born into is such a major determinant of the likelihood of living a healthy and productive life?
The government needs to be aggressive in tackling our disease burden and unrelenting in its efforts to address preventable risk factors such as disease caused by alcohol and tobacco. To that end, why are we still waiting for the government to finalise the National Alcohol Strategy 2018-2026? We need to commit to ensuring that all Australians, including those living in rural and remote areas and our Indigenous populations, have access to quality, affordable health care and health advice to enable them to live full lives and continue to contribute to our community.
Launceston Chamber of Commerce
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (19:51): I am delighted to rise today to acknowledge the 170th anniversary of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce. Located just a block from my electorate office, the Launceston chamber is the oldest chamber of commerce in Australia. It is an organisation that my family and I have had a longstanding association with.
Earlier this month, the Tasmanian Premier, state Treasurer, Minister Ferguson, Bridget Archer MP and the Launceston mayor joined Launceston Chamber of Commerce members and board members and their guests to celebrate this magnificent milestone with an event at Country Club Tasmania. It certainly was an occasion that deserved high recognition.
As the chamber marks this significant anniversary and looks forward to continuing for yet another 170 years, I thought it appropriate to reflect on its history. The Launceston Chamber of Commerce was established in August 1849, with a remit that still stands today: to boost Launceston's economy. Its first meeting was held on 22 August 1849, after Mr JW Gleadow and 15 other merchants placed an advertisement in the local newspaper, The Examiner, inviting fellow colonists to meet them 'for the purpose of deliberating such measures as may be proposed for benefitting the commercial and maritime, as well as the agricultural interests, of this country'. Mr Gleadow was voted as the chair, with all 16 businessmen forming the first standing committee. At that meeting, Mr Munro was voted secretary and convener and Mr Henty treasurer. One of the first undertakings by the newly elected chamber treasurer, Mr Henty, was to make a 'prompt demand for sixpence on each gentleman present', The Examiner reported at the time.
The chamber was originally set up to promote the community's commercial, industrial and civic interests through cooperation with different levels of government. Other discussion points included opening up country districts, port development, marketing, transport, industrial relations, immigration, relations between farmers and businessmen and defending Tasmania's interests when it came to federal shipping policies.
At the time the chamber was formed, Launceston—and indeed Van Diemen's Land—was already establishing itself as a place of innovation and action. Convicts were still being transported to the state, although it was not long after that that the Australasian Anti-Transportation League was established to end this activity. Australia's first operation with anaesthetic had recently been undertaken by Dr William Russ Pugh at St John's Hospital, which is now Morton House, in Charles Street, Launceston. During that operation, Dr Pugh had used equipment he had designed from a magazine article. In 1849 the chamber and its members acted as an advocate for the advancement of the whole community, but meetings were conducted free of politics.
One hundred years later, during its centenary year in 1949, The Examiner reported that the Launceston Chamber of Commerce:
… owes its initiation to a desire to increase individual and community success and prosperity. During its existence it has shown a practical belief in the outstanding value of self-help.
The article went on to state:
One hundred years ago a number of businessmen of Launceston felt that there was need for action to combat the effects of trading systems. Particularly were they alarmed at the repression, by ad valorem duties, of traffic in commerce with the adjacent colonies.
This, it was pointed out, was a serious matter for the man engaged in commerce and agriculture, for it was realised at that early date that the two were interdependent, that the towns could not prosper unless the country districts around them prospered.
There have been many changes within the Launceston business community in the past 170 years, not least that chamber of commerce members now number men and women. However, the chamber's original ideas and goals do not differ much from those discussed today. Launceston businesses still celebrate their connections with the surrounding agricultural districts; and the city still works towards better trading relationships with Hobart and the state's regions, as well as with mainland Australia and internationally.
Now, the 2019 vision of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce speaks about how the region's economy is reinvigorated and how the business community is innovative, sustainable and globally engaged, all of which creates somewhere people choose to live, work and invest. The organisation has continued to support Greater Launceston businesses through advocacy on issues such as public holiday consolidation, premises security during a rise in CBD burglaries, and job losses when companies have closed. It also recognises business excellence in the region during its annual awards program.
Launceston was a dynamic business centre 170 years ago and continues to be so today. I congratulate the Launceston Chamber of Commerce board. (Time expired)
Anti-Poverty Week
Indigenous Australians
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:56): Anybody who has been paying attention in the Senate this week can't fail to be aware that it is Anti-poverty Week. I've been taking every opportunity I can to not only highlight the need to raise the appalling rate of Newstart but also look at the impacts of the low rate of Newstart and its impact on people who are living in poverty. One of the key groups that I particularly want to focus on tonight is First Nations peoples.
We know that wealth and income are not distributed evenly across this country, and First Nations peoples, who are already experiencing greater levels of poverty than other communities in Australia, are also affected by the low rates of Newstart. On average, First Nations peoples receive personal income that is only two-thirds that of non-Aboriginal people. It has been estimated that one-third of the gap in life expectancy between First Nations peoples and other Australians is as a result of poverty. Poverty is one of the drivers of the many issues faced by First Nations peoples, including incarceration rates, mental health issues and poor health. On top of this, the low rate of Newstart is trapping First Nations peoples in poverty. First Nations peoples make up more than one in 10 Newstart recipients and one in five youth allowance recipients.
Dr Markham from the ANU and Professor Altman, an emeritus professor from Deakin University, have said:
… the current rate of Newstart is killing Indigenous Australians. Life expectancy gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians cannot be expected to close while the rate of Newstart remains so low.
It's not only the low rate of Newstart that is hurting First Nations peoples; it's also the government's punitive and onerous approach to reporting requirements and mutual obligations. First Nations peoples bear the brunt of financial penalties, payment suspensions and payment cancellations applied under unemployment programs and, in particular, the Community Development Program. The government keeps penalising First Nations peoples through punitive measures such as compulsory income management, the Community Development Program, jobactive and ParentsNext. The current approaches are actually increasing and exacerbating the rate of poverty in First Nations communities.
First Nations peoples are being locked out of their basic right to social security because many are disappearing from the social security system and have no visible means of support. First Nations peoples are actually walking away from the system; that's what it looks like, according to the statistics. This may in fact be what the government is trying to achieve. Making the system so difficult to navigate, so difficult to keep in contact with and so difficult to stay connected with is a way of decreasing our income support budget. (Time expired)
Senate adjourned at 20:00