Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, raised a point of order in relation to language used during question time. I indicated that I would reflect on the matter and report back to the Senate if required. I now report back on the matter and other matters that occurred during question time and later during the sittings yesterday.
Firstly, on the matter in relation to language used by Senator Brandis: the rules of debate in standing order 193(3) provide that 'all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections' on senators or members are 'highly disorderly'. It is for the chair to determine what constitutes offensive words, imputations or improper motives and personal reflections under that standing order. In doing so, the chair has regard to the connotations of expressions and the context in which they are used. As I reminded the Senate on 1 September last year:
… unparliamentary language does not cease to be unparliamentary merely because it is directed at a group of members or senators rather than to an individual.
Yesterday I was asked to reflect on the use of language directed at what I am taking to mean a political organisation or grouping. The terms used was 'machine'. This raises different considerations than language directed solely at a group of members or senators. Depending on its context, language directed at a political organisation may refer to senators and members, including members of other parliaments, to people who are not members of parliament or to both. To the extent that such language appears to be directed at any senator or member or any group of senators or members, it must comply with the standing orders. The difficulty for any chair is to determine instantly if that language does relate solely to senators or members. On this occasion, that was impossible to determine on the first expression of the phrase.
Where expressions are used which are open to an interpretation that makes them contrary to the standing orders, it is always open to the chair to ask the senator speaking to clarify their meaning and intention, and, if that meaning and intention is not contrary to the standing orders, to allow the senator to proceed on that basis without withdrawing the words in question.
President Reid ruled on that on 18 March 1997. Senator Brandis, speaking to the point of order raised by Senator Wong, clarified his reference, and I quote from the Hansard yesterday:
I am not suggesting that every member of the Labor Party or any individual member of the Labor Party is a liar. What I am suggesting is that the Labor Party as an organisation is a lying machine.
Irrespective of the fact that, by clarifying that point, Senator Brandis had not breached the standing orders on this occasion, I would ask all senators to consider very carefully the language that is used in questions and answers and, in particular, in debate.
Secondly, the matter of the use of the phrase 'secret commissions' was raised. Again, I undertook to reflect on the use of this term. Any remark which carries an imputation of corruption or criminality made in respect of any senator or member is contrary to the standing orders and, if made, ought be withdrawn. I do not consider, in the context in which the phrase was used yesterday, that it carried that imputation. You will recall that I required the Leader of the Government to withdraw other phrases which, in my view, did carry such imputations, and he withdrew them immediately. However, I personally find the use of such language, again, to be unpleasant at best. Whilst senators may sail very close to the wind in relation to standing orders, I would ask again that senators reflect carefully on the language that is used during debate and during question time.
Thirdly, Senator Wong raised a point of order asking about the content of a question. I note longstanding rulings of presidents, including one expressed by my predecessor Senator the Hon. John Hogg in the following terms on 7 Feb 2013:
You cannot ask a question about an opposition policy. You can ask about an alternative policy …
In fact, over 600 references can be found on that style of question being asked by senators from a variety of political backgrounds. In my view, the question was therefore in order.
Finally, a matter was referred to me by Senator Sterle in his capacity as a temporary chair. Later in the day an exchange between senators McKim and Abetz took place which the Temporary Chair of Committees, Senator Sterle, undertook to bring to my attention. Senator McKim was, quite properly, required to withdraw a remark that a senator had lied. He should have done so unconditionally. The phrase he substituted contains an improper imputation against a senator, contrary to standing order 193(3), and should be withdrawn. I do call on Senator McKim, if you would kindly do so now.
Thank you, Mr President. I withdraw.
Thank you, Senator McKim. Again, in conclusion, Senators, could I ask that you are all very conscious of the language you use in parliamentary debate. You are seeking leave, Senator Bernardi?
I am seeking leave, just to raise a point with you, if I may.
Is leave granted? Leave is granted.
Mr President, you referred there to a question by Senator Wong about the appropriateness of a question, and you then went back to Odgers and previous rulings. In the last 24 hours I have written to you, because it seems to me that many of us as senators rely on the standing orders, yet the historical rulings attached to some of the standing orders seem to contradict the standing orders as they are now and appear for us. In the interests of clarification, I am going to suggest that you put together a working committee of senators to see whether we can bring the standing orders up to date and to be consistent with the practice of the Senate so that we can rely on them in trying to uphold the values and procedures of this place.
Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I note those comments and I look forward to receiving your letter in relation to that.
I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. Let us be clear: this is an incredibly consequential piece of legislation that we have before us. That is because what we are considering in the chamber today is, by the government's own admission, the centrepiece of their entire economic agenda. So it is worth asking: what is the agenda the government is seeking to implement with this bill? Well, while it has been cynically and misleadingly marketed to the Australian people by the Prime Minister and Treasurer as a tax cut for small business, in reality all that this government has to offer by way of an economic agenda is an enormous unfunded tax cut for foreign multinationals and the big banks.
What a massive wasted opportunity this bill is for the government and, more importantly, for our country. That is because the opportunity cost of pursuing this so-called plan is that the Turnbull government is failing to actually address the very real economic challenges we must confront. It has been 10 months since the government proposed these tax cuts in the 2016 budget, yet they have only now just brought this legislation to the Senate for debate. This is typical for what passes for economic leadership from the Abbott-Turnbull government. They have presided over a total vacuum in economic leadership at the national level. They have embraced inertia over action and preferred slogans to substance. At a time when we as a nation are faced with economic challenges that demand our urgent attention, this government has been missing in action on all counts. Whether it is rising inequality, stagnant wage growth, worsening housing affordability, climate change, unemployment and underemployment, technological disruption and automation, the negative distortions in our tax system or the need to transition to a model of growth that is not driven by mining investment, there is simply no coherent plan or strategy from this government.
I think it pays to place some of the challenges we are facing into historical perspective. Australian workers are currently experiencing the lowest wage growth in 30 years. Our rates of home ownership have plummeted to a 60-year low and inequality is at a staggering 75-year high. Another way to appreciate the challenge we are facing is to acknowledge that in the past generation the top one per cent of income earners have doubled their share of income, while at the other end of the spectrum one in eight Australians now say they cannot afford dental care. Yet, rather than advocating an economic plan that seeks to address these clearly pressing issues, the Turnbull government has made a perverse choice: to prioritise multinationals over Australian families and, in the process, recklessly narrow the revenue base of our tax system. This government's idea of tackling debt and deficit is to blow a $50 billion hole in the budget for a purported benefit in the future that could be mistaken for a rounding error.
What does this mean in the real world for working and middle class Australians? Without sufficient revenue, we will be unable to provide services that communities right across Australia rely upon, nor will we be able to invest in our human and physical capital to ensure that most Australian of aspirations: a fair society with decent living standards for all. Make no mistake: in attempting to pass this bill, the Turnbull government is in essence proposing a $50 billion giveaway on the backs of ordinary taxpayers to big multinational businesses and their shareholders offshore. This is not only fiscally irresponsible on a grand scale; it is morally reprehensible as well. It is truly astonishing that a government whose members like to stand at the dispatch box of this parliament and lecture us on the intergenerational inequity of debt now seems blindly intent on adding $50 billion to it while ignoring the budget deficit. That is a deficit that the most recent MYEFO revealed to be $36.5 billion, delivered by a government that has managed to increase net government debt from $184 billion to $317 billion in less than four years.
How can the government seriously claim to be addressing the budget deficit and government debt when this is their signature economic proposal? As Labor's shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has made clear, Labor will not be party to this discredited Laffer curve, Reaganomics-style approach to deficit reduction. Make no mistake: that is the course the government, through this bill, seeks to embark us upon, based on magic pudding economics—that you can endlessly cut tax rates and still miraculously return to surplus. This approach is now widely acknowledged by academics and leading economic institutions as widening inequality and dampening precisely the kind of sustainable and inclusive economic growth needed to generate new high-skill, high-wage jobs that can deliver improved living standards.
If this bill were to pass, it would fail dismally in its stated aim to deliver economic growth of any note, for reasons I will turn to a greater depth later. It would undoubtedly damage the fiscal position of the Commonwealth and jeopardise our AAA credit rating. Most critically—and the issue that motivates us on this side of the chamber—it will rob working and middle class Australians of desperately needed investment in skills, education, health care and infrastructure. These are the real drivers of long-term and inclusive economic growth. It is a sad indictment of this government that, more than three years since it was first elected, and on the eve of its fourth budget, it still has no credible plan to deliver economic prosperity for the Australian people.
Looking back over its more than three years in office, this coalition government's economic record can regrettably be characterised by its misguided austerity for the most vulnerable in our community while sparing the big end of town. Boiling it down to its essential logic, or rather illogic, according to this government, providing a vulnerable young jobseeker with Newstart in their hour of need is unaffordable. It is symptomatic of unsustainable largesse that they described as a budget crisis. Yet, on the other hand, handing over billions upon billions of dollars in tax cuts to the largest companies operating in the country is not only affordable but their most pressing economic priority.
Regrettably, that is what happens when you have a Prime Minister who is beholden to the hard right wing of his own party, and there appears to be little hope that a real economic reform agenda will spring forth from this government during this term of parliament. It is far more likely it will continue to be sidetracked, with the Prime Minister pandering to the whims of a mutinous backbench that's laughably out of touch with mainstream concerns. We saw examples of that just this week—a Prime Minister and a government focused on watering down hate speech laws, but with no time to defend the take-home pay of some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia who rely on penalty rates.
This bill was the government's economic rationale for reelection. That was confirmed last year by the finance minister in Senate estimates when he described it as the centrepiece of their economic agenda. But it is lazy policy, it's unimaginative, and ultimately exposes the government for its lack of vision.
Turning to the specifics of the proposal, this bill will be ineffective when measured against what the government claims it will achieve—jobs and growth. In fact, the key beneficiary, should this bill pass, would not be the Australian community but rather foreign shareholders of firms that operate in Australia.
It is worth taking some time to canvass the contemporary evidence on the connection between corporate taxes and economic growth. Despite being the perennial demand of certain industry groups and right-wing think tanks, is there really evidence to support the notion that cutting the corporate tax rate is the economic panacea they claim it to be?
Some of the most recent analysis from a very broad range of institutions, which include the Treasury, the Grattan Institute, the Australia Institute, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have all seriously called into question the efficacy of corporate tax cuts when not coupled with other economic reform as an instrument to drive growth. Some of those same groups have raised further and compelling doubts about their usefulness, especially when considered in the Australian context, taking into account our current debt profile and the particular features of our tax system. In particular, they note that, given our unique system of dividend imputation and the fact we are competing with low- and no-tax jurisdictions, any supposed benefit tax cuts would deliver would be negligible at best.
Treasury's own modelling exposes the underwhelming case for the government's plan. In its analysis of the most recent budget entitled 'Economywide modelling for the 2016-17 Budget,' the Treasury has estimated the impact of the government's corporate tax giveaway on Australia's projected economic growth. The key take-out from this modelling is that over 20 years the proposed cut in company tax from 30 per cent to 25 percent for all businesses would increase GDP by only 1.2 per cent.
I really think that deserves to be repeated: over 20 years—that is, six terms of the federal parliament—Treasury expects this bill will only boost our GDP by 1.2 per cent. And that is the headline growth rate. When you drill down into that figure, it reveals just how lacklustre that result is when you consider what it means for Australian households. As my colleague Andrew Leigh succinctly put it: 'Treasury's most likely scenario is that a company tax cut delivers an extra month of household income growth—in the 2030s.'
And we should not be surprised.
Recent analyses of Australia's growth performance with comparable nations that have lower corporate tax rates find little evidence to buttress the claims that economic growth is inevitably higher in countries that impose lower rates of corporate tax. And, fundamentally, this government's plan for dishing out tax cuts for big business rests on the notion that our current corporate tax rate—currently 30 per cent for the largest businesses—is uncompetitive and impairs economic performance.
But even a cursory analysis proves we are very much in line with other developed countries, especially as Michael Pascoe notes in his excellent piece in the Fairfax papers entitled 'An inconvenient truth gets in the way of the company tax cut chants', when we weight that tax rate for the extra security, stability and opportunities Australia offers investors.
The largest economy in the world, the United States, has a headline corporate tax rate of about 35 per cent. The economic powerhouse of Europe, Germany, has a rate of 29.65 per cent. Looking to our region and one of our largest trading partners, Japan, the fourth largest economy in the world, has a tax rate of 30.86 per cent. In fact, if you look at the world's 10 largest economies, the corporate tax rate currently averages around 29 per cent. It is simply a fallacy to say that having a tax rate above 25 per cent prohibits strong economic performance. But headline tax rates are just one element and looking at them in isolation is folly. I have no doubt, however, that you will hear plenty of facile repetition of headline tax rates without proper context from those opposite in their contributions to this debate.
That missing context is the impact of features of our tax system such as dividend imputation. The Grattan Institute's submission to the Senate Economics Committee's inquiry into this bill provides further compelling evidence that dramatically diminishes the case for big company tax cuts. Grattan's submission states:
Australia's unusual dividend imputation system means that domestic investors are largely unaffected by the company tax rate since any profits paid to them are taxed at their personal income tax rate.
Yet because foreign investors, by contrast, do not benefit from dividend imputation, a cut to the company tax rate provides bigger benefits to them.
For those foreign firms who have already made long-term investments in Australia, a reduction in the tax rate would simply be a windfall. Yet this marginal reduction in headline rate does not meaningfully incentivise new investment.
Treasury also acknowledges the substantial costs of the measure in the short term could see company tax cuts drag on national incomes for the next ten years. Even the most sympathetic analysis from the Treasury shows that any net benefit to Australians' incomes will be much smaller once profits flowing out of Australia are taken into account.
As the Grattan Institute also pointed out in its submission, it is a mistake to assume that any increase in economic activity will necessarily go toward making Australians better off. As the benefits of this bill will pass disproportionately to nonresidents, using the GDP as the principal measure of its success is flawed. Gross national income is a better yardstick to use when assessing this bill as it more accurately reflects whether the incomes of everyday Australians might rise. Treasury estimates that a reduction in the company tax rate to 25 per cent would only increase Australia's GNI by 0.6 per cent over 20 years.
The government's claim that these tax cuts will deliver jobs and wages growth simply does not stack up to real-world scrutiny. Let's be clear: a race to the bottom on corporate taxes would be futile for Australia to engage in. The OECD has recognised that profit shifting by large multinational companies to tax havens is widespread and has sought to combat it through the base erosion and profit shifting policy. As noted by the ACTU in its submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, this is an acknowledgement of the fact that in many cases Australia is already competing against countries with low or negligible company tax rates. Any relatively minor reduction in our corporate tax will struggle to attract significant additional investment, when you consider we are competing against cynically designed tax havens that will always be more attractive.
Put simply, this bill will not meaningfully grow the economy. It will not deliver meaningful wage growth; it will not improve our capacity to fund services, nor will it genuinely improve our competitiveness internationally. It simply does not stack up as an economic plan. It is just as important to consider the economic benefits of large cuts to the company tax rate against their budgetary and social costs, and that is what Labor has done. We recognise that the countries around the world that have a record of strong and inclusive economic growth do share something in common, and it is not a rock-bottom tax rate. It is that they build the necessary infrastructure to allow their people and firms to be more productive and compete in the global marketplace. They invest in research and development, which lead to innovative new products and businesses. They understand the value of funding an education system that will provide world-class skills through higher education and vocational training. In our current budgetary circumstance, this bill would severely curtail our ability to do all of those things. This tax cut is something that we simply cannot afford.
Labor is committed to a budget and a taxation system that link effort and reward in a fair way—especially for those who are trying to make a go for themselves in small businesses—while also taking responsible decisions that go to the sustainability of our public finances, so that we can make targeted investments that promote inclusive growth. That is what we took to the last election. We took measured and sensible reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax that would improve the budget bottom line and help combat intergenerational inequity. We coupled a reduction in company taxation, which supports genuine small businesses, with responsible commitments to fund investments in health, infrastructure, education and research.
A Labor amendment to the bill has been circulated in my name to give effect to our election commitments. Our amendments match our values. They defend our public finances and would deliver targeted tax relief to genuinely small businesses. They would do so by reducing the company tax rate to 27.5 per cent for businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million, the threshold that remains consistent with the ATO definition of a small business; increasing the unincorporated small business tax discount from five per cent to eight per cent for businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million; and by not proceeding with the increase to the small business entity threshold. Our considered amendments would help 96 per cent of all Australian small businesses—that is, defined as having less than a $2 million turnover. Costed by the PBO, they would save $4.4 billion over the forward estimates and $50 billion over the medium term compared to the government's reckless policy. Under Labor's policy around 811,000 companies and 2.19 million unincorporated businesses would benefit. That is more than three million businesses in total.
In conclusion, I simply ask that the government apply its previously stated rationale for abandoning tax reform in the last term. It may seem like an awfully long time ago, especially for the Prime Minister, but it is worth casting our minds back to those heady days of the early Turnbull government. At that time, and after many public thought bubbles on the subject, the Turnbull government decided to abandon the GST increase it had been prosecuting, stating on the public record that the modelling showed little to any economic benefit. Well, this legislation fails against the very same standard. We need tax and expenditure reform that is aimed at boosting income growth and increased worker participation, coupled with stronger investments in our educational, environmental and physical capital. This was the clarion call of the Henry Tax Review, because, as it noted, this balanced approach is what is needed to ensure a future that is fiscally and environmentally sustainable while honouring the commitment to Australian values of fairness and support for those who are disadvantaged. That is Labor's focus, and it should be the government's focus too. This bill does none of those things, and in its current form it is not worthy of the support of the parliament.
The Greens will not be supporting any tax cuts today, and I would like to spend the next 20 minutes to explain why. Firstly, we are very proud that we took a policy for small business to the 2013election, including a tax cut and a whole range of measures designed to help small business get ahead. We worked constructively with the government following the 2013 election, and we played a critical role in getting that small business package delivered and passed into legislation.
There are two key arguments the government use for supporting their Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. The first is that somehow this is going to deliver jobs and growth. Let's be very clear about this: this is the central, capstone policy of this 46th parliament for this Liberal-National government. This is the capstone policy to deliver us a future in this country over the next 10 years, and it relies on voodoo economics. It relies on the concept that, somehow, if we give companies more profits then those profits will trickle down into the economy, delivering wealth and jobs. This is based on the Laffer curve of the 1970s, a theory that has been thoroughly debunked; there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support it—and I will discuss that more in a minute. The second reason the government use to support tax cuts for businesses, including big businesses, is that somehow we will suffer from a lack of foreign investment if we do not cut our tax rates.
I want deal with comments made by the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, at Davos in January this year. She made a very interesting statement in light of what we are considering here today in the Australian parliament. Her statement also applies to foreign jurisdictions such as the US economy. She was asked a question about what she saw as being the black swan events for 2017 in the international economy. For those who are not aware, black swan events relate to generally unforeseen but high-risk events that can rock financial markets and economies. Christine Lagarde is possibly one of the most influential and important leaders in international economics and she had this to say:
If the disruptions we are expecting for 2017 as a result of what has happened in 2016 prove to be all negative and we are to end up in a race to the bottom on the tax front, on the trade front and on the financial regulation front, then that for me would be a really big black swan that would have devastating effects for countries other than those that are likely to cause it.
To repeat that: in direct reference to corporate tax cuts that Donald Trump, the US President, had been talking about, the head of the IMF, at the beginning of the year at the premier international conference, said that major cuts to taxes could have devastating effects—a 'race to the bottom'—on the global economy.
So much for tax cuts having a positive effect on the economy, which no doubt speaker after speaker across the chamber in the Liberal-National Party are going to come in here and tell us. This is the head of the IMF saying to us that 'a race to the bottom'—and nobody wins in a race to the bottom—is going to be a significant economic risk to the global economy this year. This is a race that our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is about to fire the starting gun on today. Here we are in the Senate, lining up to get ready for that race—a race to the bottom.
Interestingly, it is not just Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, who has been making comments. When I thought about the corporate tax cuts myself, I reflected on my experience working in finance. I spent 10 years at the University of Tasmania teaching international finance to MBA students and to undergraduates. I have a pretty good idea of how businesses make decisions, especially around direct foreign investment, and I was aware that tax was only one of many factors in consideration by corporations when they look at foreign investment.
Let's have a look at whether a high tax rate in this country relative to other countries has affected our foreign investment. There is a very interesting report put out by the The Australia Institute that says that cutting company tax will not drive investment, and it outlined an analysis that finds that 97 per cent of applications to Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board come from countries already with lower tax rates than Australia and that by value 71 per cent of applications come from countries with lower rates.
All this raises the question: if Australia is already successful at attracting foreign investment, why would we give tax cuts to foreigners? It goes on to say that history shows that, when Australia's tax rates were adjusted in the past, foreign investment did not go the way we expected. When the rate climbed to 49 per cent in the 1980s, there was a rise, not a drop, in foreign investment. I encourage all senators to read that report—I will actually quote it again in a minute. It has some very interesting empirical evidence and analysis.
But let's get back to what corporations think about a tax cut. Canada's largest pension fund, with $300 billion under investment, called the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, was asked this question in Australia last month. I put this question to Senator Cormann in estimates and to Mr John Fraser, the head of Treasury, as I did Christine Lagarde's comments which they batted off. They said they disagreed with the head of the IMF that a 'race to the bottom' in corporate tax cuts was a risk to the global economy. I asked them about the comments by the Canadian pension fund that stated:
As investors we frankly value the cash flows. What matters to us is predictability—it is not so much the level of tax paid. We look at the predictability of the system and we think Australia rates quite highly on that measure.
From a tax perspective, as long as we know going in what we are buying we are happy. We think Australia will maintain its competitiveness and the tax rate will not affect that.
This is one of the biggest foreign investors in our country, especially in the area of infrastructure, batting away and rejecting commentary that Australia may lose its international competitiveness if we do not cut corporate tax rates and join in this race to the bottom with the US President, Donald Trump, and with Britain.
When I put that question to Mr Fraser in estimates he did not agree with the Canadian pension fund, but he has had experience working with them in the past. But he has previously said that he does not necessarily believe that big businesses, which are going to get the bulk of the benefit of corporate tax cuts—have no doubt about that—necessarily put much emphasis on them either. He said, 'If anything, it is a second- or third- or fourth-rate consideration for them.' He did say—in all fairness—that a cutting of the corporate tax rate would be a good thing for small and medium business but for big business it was not necessarily the case. So he has made his views clear. I find it quite interesting that even the head of Treasury has previously been on record as saying that he does not believe that corporate tax cuts will necessarily impact foreign investment, especially for big businesses.
David Gonski, another leader in the business community in Australia, has also said that tax cuts are not the best solution. He was quoted recently, in the last month, in the Australian media in relation to this debate declaring that cutting the corporate tax rate would make little difference to large Australian companies. This is putting him at loggerheads, interestingly, with the Business Council of Australia. He argued that other measures such as accelerated depreciation rates would make a much bigger difference to companies than cutting the corporate tax rate. He said, 'To take one part of the tax system and dwell on it is really not the way to do it.' This is one of the most respected businessmen in this country, who we are all very familiar with based on his work around the Gonski education reforms.
Why are the Business Council of Australia, who represent the big end of town, so keen on seeing a cut to company tax? As you would probably guess, they stand to benefit from it the most, with billions of dollars in extra profits that will flow to their members. But what is really interesting when you look at the Business Council of Australia, who have been the key lobbyists for cutting the corporate tax rate from 30 to 25 per cent, in particular suggesting that it will affect foreign investment in this country if we do not, is that transparency reports that have now been lodged with the ATO show that the Business Council's members paid an effective tax rate in 2014-15 of just 24.3 per cent. An effective tax rate incorporates deductions against tax, which are perfectly legal and allowable deductions, by the way, but their effective tax rate—the real tax they pay—is already below the 25 per cent that they want us, in this Senate chamber, to cut the corporate tax rate to, which means that their effective tax rate, if we cut the headline rate to 25 per cent, will be around 20 per cent or less. So, if we look at this debate just on the headline rate, not think about the deductions and take a holistic approach to the issue, we see that it is also voodoo economics. May I say that we have heard different measures of what the Business Council of Australia's members pay, but, when it comes to multinational corporations themselves, a report last year found that 76 of Australia's largest multinationals pay an effective tax rate of just 16.2 per cent. That report was released by the Tax Justice Network. We have also seen reports by tax experts from the University of Technology Sydney, who have provided data for the top 100 companies, and they find that there are very low effective tax rates in this country.
It has not escaped my attention that recently there has also been work done by the Grattan Institute, who are often quoted in this place and the other place across the corridor because of the great work they do—and, by the way, the Greens do not always agree with what they put out, as you can imagine. Nevertheless, on this issue they went to great lengths to point out that a cut to corporate tax rates will benefit foreign investors more than domestic investors. Because the profits will be taken offshore, the impacts on the economy, especially in the first eight to nine years, of a cut in the company tax rate to 25 per cent will be very limited. There has also been a lot of criticism of the modelling that was used by the Treasury group that was commissioned to do the modelling. I do not have time to go into it today, but there is an enormous body of international work that thoroughly debunks the myth that, somehow, if we give corporations more profits, that will benefit us. In my observations and view of the world, it seems that it is trickle-up that has worked.
It would be a fascinating exercise to go to these corporations, who essentially we will be giving over $50 billion of taxpayer money to via these tax cuts, and ask them what kind of social contract we could put in place to guarantee that they will reinvest all that taxpayer money—and it is taxpayer money, because that is what we are currently collecting. In this social contract, will they invest that in jobs? Will they invest that in better conditions and pay for workers? Will they invest that in Australian communities? That is what our job is in government. It is to raise revenue and to invest that in our community across education, health care, national security or whatever it happens to be—that is our job, and that is the key cost. The modelling around the benefits in this trickle-down economics, this voodoo economics, of corporate tax cuts has been disputed and is very sparse on detail, but we do know what the costs are of these corporate tax cuts. They mean tens of billions of dollars in revenue forgone that could be better spent in other parts of the economy. I also recommend that senators examine the report by the Australia Institute on this, which actually goes into the detail of those opportunity costs.
So what could we do? If we do actually want to stimulate jobs in our economy and invest in the long-term future of our communities, what could we do as senators and in government? We have a lot of options ahead of us apart from cutting corporate tax rates and giving some of the biggest, wealthiest corporations in the world extra money in their pockets, taken directly out of our pockets. What else could we do? Just about every economist and every commentator in this country is talking about the need for the government now to significantly invest in long-term productive infrastructure in Australia. I chaired a select committee that went for nearly nine months that looked at this issue extensively. At every estimates I ask the Treasury secretary and others about why we are not doing more to invest in productive infrastructure. Right around this country, we have hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in underinvestment in our future. At record low interest rates, we have an opportunity to spend on capital. I am not referring to recurrent expenditure—I agree that carries significant risks—but why aren't we doing more now to invest in our future? The head of the Reserve Bank makes this point in every single public speech. I have heard evidence from Saul Eslake, John Hewson and so many economists that now is the time. I do not believe that at the moment we have the right structure around infrastructure spending in place through Infrastructure Australia. We need more transparency. We need proper cost-benefit analysis done. When need to depoliticise the process and reduce the risk so that we can actually get private investors involved in this issue.
The Greens took a policy to the last election—I know Labor had a slightly similar one—around a government owned infrastructure bank that would totally restructure Infrastructure Australia, make this investment process arm's length and look at how we can get the private sector to co-invest in infrastructure. I am not just talking about roads and public transport. I went around the country, including to smaller towns like Townsville, Wagga Wagga and other places, and heard about their infrastructure needs.
There are so many projects waiting for funding that would benefit communities and benefit productivity. Some of them can be monetised and some of them can even be securitised. Local government in my home state of Tasmania is crying out for just $2 billion to invest in 30-year sewerage infrastructure, because our infrastructure dates back, in some places, over 100 years. But it does not have the money, because the federal government is not making a pool of cheap finance available for long-term investment. If coalition senators actually want to stimulate jobs and growth, and they are serious about it, I ask them to consider why they are underinvesting in infrastructure in this country.
We can invest not only in jobs. We can invest in communities. We can invest in the environment. We can do a much better job by getting on and immediately stimulating our economy. We believe the government should play a very crucial leadership role on this issue. We are going down the wrong road in cutting corporate taxes. There is so much more that we could be doing. There is no evidence at all that corporate tax cuts work. This is the government's cheerleaders, the Business Council of Australia—no doubt many of those companies are donors to the Liberal-National Party.
We do not believe that this is the right way to go. Just to reiterate: the Greens will not be supporting any tax cuts today. We believe this is a race to the bottom that we do not want to be a part of. Nobody wins in a race to the bottom on corporate tax cuts.
I do not intend to make a long contribution on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I know we have a large amount of legislation to get through over the course of this week, but I want to put my position on the record over the course of this debate. Put simply, my position, not surprisingly, is that of the Labor Party's, which is that we support a company tax cut for small businesses with a turnover of up to $2 million per annum. We see absolutely no justification whatsoever for a company tax cut for larger businesses, particularly at this time and particularly with the Australian and world economies as they currently stand.
Really, this bill is just another example of how this government has the wrong priorities for dealing with the challenges that our country faces. Day after day we deal with bills put up by this government that seeks to make cuts to government expenditure and wages and conditions that the poorest in our community and low- and middle-income earners in our community depend upon. Even just in the last couple of weeks we have seen cuts made to family tax benefits, which only go to low- and middle-income families, and, increasingly, are targeted on the very low income earners within our community. We have seen cuts made to payments to single parents. We are still seeing the effects of cuts this government is making to public health funding and to public school funding. It has failed to invest in public transport infrastructure. The government is targeting and making cuts to anything that the average wage earner in Australia depends upon to get ahead in life. We know that the government supports penalty rate cuts as well.
If you are a low- or middle-income earner, if you are an average person in the Australian community, this government constantly comes after you through cuts to government expenditure. The justification that is always provided by the government is that we need to rein in the deficit, which—has it doubled or tripled under their watch?—has certainly increased substantially. But, at the very same time, the same government is willing to provide massive handouts to big business, whether it be in the form of subsidies or through this bill, through reductions in company tax.
The government failed to take any action in relation to the excessive concessions that are available to people through negative gearing, when they are seeking to negatively gear their third, fourth, fifth, 20th, 30th or 40th investment property. It seeks to give big company tax cuts, but, at the same time, it turns around and tell us that it cannot afford to provide government funding to provide decent health care, decent public schooling and decent income support to Australians who need it most.
As well as demonstrating that the government has the wrong priorities, this bill is an example of the government's driving a divide within the Australian community rather than taking action to bring us together. I spoke yesterday about the government's amendments to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which are going to open the door to more racist speech in our community and thereby facilitate greater division within our community. That is now being done on the economic front by this government as it seeks to provide a big company tax cut of $50 billion over 10 years to big businesses. This will only see the level of inequality in our community increase, where the rich get ahead and the poor are left behind, especially when this government is cutting a range of benefits as well.
Labor is very happy to support a company tax cut for smaller businesses—those with a turnover of up to $2 million a year. We understand that many of them are struggling at the moment, and a company tax cut to those smaller businesses will assist them to stay afloat and, in some instances, may generate some employment. But Labor does not see any justification at all for a company tax cut for the big end of town.
Australia is already one of the lowest taxed countries in the OECD. We are not a highly taxed country, despite the claims that are made to the contrary. We have a large and growing deficit, and yet this government wants to reduce the amount of revenue that it is collecting each year via a company tax cut. We are constantly told by the government that delivering this kind of company tax cut will generate jobs, will generate growth and will generate revenue for the government. It is classic 1980s Reaganomics. Anyone who has looked back on what occurred under President Reagan when he delivered these kinds of company tax cuts will know that the US government deficit ballooned and that there was no obvious economic pay-off to the United States in return for that ballooning deficit, which was largely generated by the excessive tax cuts provided by President Reagan. I fear that what is going to occur in Australia if the government gets this bill through. All it will do is increase the deficit further and increase inequality without any economic pay-off whatsoever.
The other thing worth pointing out about this bill is that it will not benefit regional Australia one little bit. There are not very many businesses in regional Queensland or regional Australia with an annual turnover in the tens of millions of dollars, so there is nothing that will benefit regional Australia by providing tax cuts to large businesses like that. Yet again, it will be another instance where regional Australia is left behind and the already large levels of inequality that we see in regional Australia will only be exacerbated by this bill.
If the argument is that other countries are cutting their company tax rates and therefore we should do the same, to me that is not a satisfactory argument. Just because someone is jumping over a bridge does not mean we have to do the same thing. In fact, what we should be doing is stepping up our efforts towards international harmonisation of tax rates and closing some of the tax evasion that is occurring by companies that are chasing the lowest company tax rate all around the world. Every country in the world has an interest in bringing in sufficient tax revenue, and if we continually chase each other by reducing company tax rates and income tax rates for high income earners then we will be left in a situation where not one country in the world has the revenue that is required to deliver the social services that their populations rightly expect.
In summary, with the Australian economy the way it is at the moment and the budget deficit the way it is at the moment, this is absolutely the wrong time to be cutting big business tax rates. It is the wrong time to do the wrong thing. This bill, if it gets through, will increase the level of inequality in our community. It will drive up the deficit and there will be no economic pay-off whatsoever. That is why I and the rest of the Labor Party will be voting against the company tax cuts for any businesses with a turnover above $2 million a year.
Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, I was lucky enough to make it into the chamber for the tail end of your contribution to this debate. While I certainly will not respond to everything you said in your speech, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to address your comments about trickle-down economics. This is a personal bugbear of mine, I admit, but trickle-down economics is something that exists only in the minds of those who are opposed to it. There was actually a study done on this in recent years—I do not have it to hand, unfortunately—and there is no evidence throughout economic history that any advocate of supply-side economics, which is a better description of what I think you are referring to, has ever used the phrase 'trickle-down economics' in a persuasive way, in a way that they believe in when arguing for it. It is like neoliberalism: you will hear about neoliberalism a lot in universities and amongst the minds of those who are opposed to neoliberalism, but no-one in the history of economic thought has described themselves as a neoliberal. Anyway, that is not the substantive issue that we are here to debate today.
Let me also respond to Senator Watt's comments about Reaganomics. Unfortunately, he has got his history a little bit wrong, as is often the case in this area. The tax cuts that Ronald Regan presided over as President were primarily to personal income tax cuts, although there also were company tax cuts under his presidency. They were very substantial cuts to the rates of personal income tax in America, but to say that that caused the deficit in America under his presidency is curious on a number of grounds. One of those, and most importantly, is that the revenue collected from individuals after the tax rates were cut in fact increased rather than decreased. This is something that has been seen throughout economic history, but particularly throughout American history. It was the case under President JFK, as it was the case under President Reagan: cuts to individual tax rates in fact resulted in increased levels of revenue for the government, not decreased levels of revenue.
With those two historical side points aside, I now want to address the substance of the debate here today. I am very proud to be here to speak in favour of the government's Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016, because I believe it will make Australia more competitive and more prosperous. It will encourage more investment, and, ultimately, that will lead to higher wages and better jobs for Australians. I am very proud to be here to support this policy today.
You need not take my word for it.
We won't!
I realise that Senator Dastyari and others may be sceptical about my views on this issue, and so I will not rely alone on my views on the facts and evidence that I will take you through here this morning. I will rely on the views of those that I know that Senator Dastyari respects greatly—that is, the views of his own Labor colleagues, who helpfully have been on the record extensively on this issue in recent years and who, I think, have made some very sensible observations. There was the comment made by the then Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, who is now our opposition leader. He said in 2011:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
I could not have put it better myself. Chris Bowen, in his 2013 book Hearts and Minds, said:
It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
Hear, hear, Chris Bowen; absolutely spot on. Bill Shorten also said in 2011, again as Assistant Treasurer:
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business, which employs two in every three Australians.
Hear, hear; I could not agree more.
Senator Watt said before that reducing our company tax rates because other countries have done so to ensure that we remain internationally competitive is like following someone who has jumped off a bridge. That was a particularly graphic metaphor that I encourage him, when he has an opportunity, to discuss with Bill Shorten, his leader, because it in fact repudiates Bill Shorten's previous view on this issue. Again as Assistant Treasurer, in 2011, he said:
The Government's tax reform agenda has a strong focus on ensuring that Australia remains an attractive place to invest.
… … …
Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road.
This recognises the benefits to investment and growth from lower company tax rates and a trend to lower rates across the OECD over the past 30 years.
Senator Watt here today is repudiating the very words and arguments made by his own leader not more than six years ago.
Chris Bowen, again in his book, in 2013, in the chapter 'Promoting growth through cutting company tax'—what a great title for a chapter on economic reform; I could not have written it better myself, Senator Dastyari—said:
… Keating knew that the corporate tax rate needed to be cut to make Australia competitive, that capital and investment would flow to tax-competitive nations and that this was an important job-creation move. Today capital is even more mobile than it was then and it is important that our corporate tax rate is more competitive.
I did not know that—in Senator Watt's words—Mr Bowen was an enthusiast for jumping off a bridge to follow others, but it seems that he is. I encourage Senator Watt to take that up with his now shadow Treasurer.
Of course the shadow Treasurer also said on Lateline in December 2014:
I'd like to see it—
'it' being the company tax rate—
lower over time. I think we've had 14 years of having the corporate tax rate stable. That's too long. Over time, I'd like to see it lowered.
Indeed. He went on to say:
As the alternative Treasurer, I'm telling you that … it would be a better thing if Australia's corporate tax rate was more competitive …
That is very hard to argue with. In 2013, he said:
I think we should have the ambition of lowering company tax. … it would be the approach that we would take that our ambition would be lower company tax rates over time because it does improve our international competitiveness.
Again, I think that is very eloquently responding to Senator Watt's arguments before.
I was very touched to hear Senator Watt's concern about the federal government deficit and the debt that has been accrued and continues to accrue under the federal government. I share his concern, and I am very pleased to see him speaking about it here, but I think that unfortunately, in this instance, he is being a little bit disingenuous, on a couple of grounds. First of all, as we know, the Labor Party's record in government in this area is not one to boast about. They inherited a very good set of books, and they left them in a parlous state. There is no need to go over the ancient history of details of that, but I think their record in this department is abundantly clear. Also abundantly clear are the extraordinary lengths they have gone to to attempt to prevent this government from fixing the mess that they created and to attempt to prevent this government from paying for the things that they spent on when they were in government.
But particularly disingenuous by Senator Watt was the fact that he believes that these company tax cuts are going to expand the deficit and expand the debt. It is disingenuous because, as Senator Watt I am sure would know, the Labor Party during the election campaign spent not just every single dollar that would be spent in this company tax cut plan but $16½ billion extra. So Senator Watt's concern about the deficit I think would be more fairly and better focused on his own party's policies. Even if the company tax cuts did not proceed, it would be worsened by at least $16½ billion, just taking their election policy into account and not even taking into account what they have proposed since.
And, of course, it is another thing which the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has refuted, and I think he is right. Again in Hearts & Minds, a great book which I am very pleased to be assisting in promoting today, he says:
… the United Kingdom, facing a much tougher fiscal situation than Australia's, cut its company tax rate to 23 per cent in April 2013, to be reduced further to 21 per cent in April 2014.
So here is Chris Bowen saying that, despite the deficit that the UK has, it has proceeded with company tax cuts, and that was the right thing to do. I entirely agree, but again I hate to point out that Senator Watt is out of step with his colleagues on this issue.
I thought, when I was contemplating my contribution to this debate this morning, that I should revisit the Henry tax review because it is the most recent and most comprehensive review of our taxation system. It was done under the former government, and it was done by a person that I do not think anyone in this chamber would suggest is a neoliberal or an advocate of trickle-down economics. I stand to be corrected, but somehow I doubt that. There are a number of interesting aspects of the Henry tax review on the issue of company tax, which I commend to all senators who are considering how they will vote on this bill later this week.
The first is that the Henry tax review very powerfully demonstrated how out of step Australia's company tax rate is with the rest of the world. They were doing so in May 2010. The data that they used—and this is on page 39 of the report—was from 2009. Things have moved on since 2009, and I will update the Senate on just how they have moved on. But, in 2009, these were the OECD countries that had a lower corporate tax rate than Australia: the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Norway, Mexico, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Greece, Denmark, Austria, Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Poland, Iceland and Ireland. That was in 2009. The handful of countries in the OECD that had a higher corporate tax rate than Australia in those years was Germany, France, the United States and Japan.
Already, Ken Henry and his review were concerned that Australia was becoming out of step with the rest of the world on corporate tax. But what has happened since should give everyone in this chamber cause for much greater concern, because very many of those countries I just listed, including both those who already had a lower corporate tax rate than us and those who had a higher tax rate than us, have since further reduced their company tax rates. They have cut their company tax rates further. So Australia is becoming even more out of step with the OECD. Our company tax is becoming even less competitive.
It is likely that it will become less competitive still, particularly if President Donald Trump is successful in his plan to reduce the United States corporate tax rate down to 15 per cent, as he has promised to do, and if Germany follows suit, as it has promised to do if Trump is successful, and if the UK continues to cut its corporate tax rate as a way of ensuring that it remains competitive after its exit from the European Union, as Theresa May, the Prime Minister, has flagged it will do. Australia was already dangerously out of step in 2009, and we have become only more so since. Our international position and competitiveness have been eroded even further from what worried Ken Henry so much in 2009.
I will quote directly from the report now—and again I remind senators that this is Ken Henry's report, under a Labor government. He said:
Australia should respond to these developments by reducing the company income tax rate to 25 per cent over the short to medium term …
Presumably, the short to medium term from 2009 is right about now. He goes on to say:
This would ensure that Australia remains an attractive place to invest…
… … …
Reducing taxes on investment, particularly company income tax, would also encourage innovation and entrepreneurial activity. Such reforms would increase income for Australians by building a larger and more productive capital stock, and by generating technology and knowledge spillovers that boost the productivity of Australian businesses. A lower company income tax rate would also reduce incentives for foreign multinationals to shift profits out of Australia.
Again, that is in the words of Ken Henry.
One of the reasons why the government are proposing this reform is that we know that the benefits of a lower corporate tax rate will flow through to workers' wages and income. We know that reducing the company tax rate, which will increase investment in and the profitability of Australian companies, will ultimately and decisively benefit Australian workers. This is something which has been studied widely. The Tax Foundation in the United States, for example, found:
Wages rise $2.50 for every $1 reduction in state and local corporate income taxes.
Treasury modelling predicts that the enterprise tax plan will increase gross national income by up to 0.8 per cent and wages after tax by more than one per cent. One study estimated that a 10 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate would decrease annual gross wages by seven per cent, with a similar impact on low- and high-skilled workers.
Over time, the amount of capital investment in Australia is reduced by an uncompetitive business tax rate. This is particularly important as the tax rates of our competitors and our sources of foreign direct investment reduce. Our largest foreign direct investor, the United States, today has a company tax rate which is higher than ours, but, as I have said, it has a plan to reduce it. If they do, we may see a sharp reduction in the flow of investment from them, our largest source of foreign direct investment, and that would have very serious consequences for the wages of Australian workers. This is something that Andrew Leigh, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, has acknowledged, saying that there is a strong link between the company tax rate and wages. He has quoted studies which estimate that an increase in company tax by 10 percentage points would lead to a fall in wages by six to 10 per cent.
An important thing to bear in mind is that the benefits of reducing the company tax rate will be permanent and long lasting for the Australian economy. It is something which we will reap the benefits of, going forward. This is not just a one-off sugar hit, like the stimulus packages put in place by those opposite that we are still paying for today. This is a permanent improvement to Australia's competitiveness and productivity that will deliver dividends for decades to come.
Treasury modelling shows that a five per cent reduction in business tax will deliver a permanent boost to the economy of about one per cent over the long run, as I mentioned. Australian modelling predicts that reducing the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent would result in a permanent increase in business investment of up to 2.9 per cent over a similar period, which is equivalent to about $6.5 billion in today's dollars. By comparison, the highly successful reforms—revered by all sides of politics and by economists—preceded by the Hilmer report in the 1990s delivered about a 2.5 per cent boost to the economy. So, when those opposite talk about the economic reform legacy of Keating, as they should and are entitled to do, and they talk about the benefits delivered by the competition reforms, which were very real and very positive, they should bear in mind that they delivered a smaller boost to the economy than this tax cut for businesses will.
In the United States, it has been estimated that a one per cent cut in local business taxes can increase the number of local establishments by about three to four per cent over a 10-year period. The OECD has found that corporate income taxes are the most harmful major tax when it comes to economic growth. UK modelling predicted that reducing the tax rate from 28 per cent to 20 per cent would result in a permanent increase in investment of up to 4.5 per cent over a 20-year period.
That reminds me of another key finding of the Henry tax review. This is on page 13 of the report, in the chapter entitled 'The need for reform', which I think is even more prescient today than it was in 2009. The Treasury ranked taxes by the marginal welfare loss generated by increasing those taxes, and this is a common method to determine which taxes have the least deadweight loss on the economy and which taxes therefore can raise revenue with the least negative impact on welfare. They ranked these from the greatest loss in welfare to the lowest loss in welfare. The first three taxes are state based taxes, which obviously we do not have direct control over. They were the royalties and crude oil excise, insurance taxes and payroll tax. They are the ones that have potentially the most negative effect on welfare. But the next, fourth most harmful tax from the point of view of the welfare of the Australian people—and it is by far the most damaging tax at the federal level—is corporate income tax.
It is no accident that Ken Henry was recommending primarily, among all the other recommendations he made, a reduction of the company income tax rate—because it is a tax under the direct control of the federal government and it is the tax that has the most damaging impact on our economy.
I spoke before about the fact that a cut to company tax rates will be permanent and long lasting, but the other important thing is that the impact will be immediate. It will have an immediate impact on our economy and give an immediate boost not just to small businesses—who, under our plan, will take advantage immediately of a reduction in tax rates, and that is a very important aspect of the plan—but also to medium and larger sized businesses, who, if this full package is legislated, will have confidence that the investments they make today, which have a long lead time and which may not return a profit for many years, will be returned in a favourable tax environment. That will encourage them to make those investments today.
One of the most important things we can do is deliver certainty to those businesses that there will be a good economic return on their investment in the years to come. So, even if we cut their taxes today through legislation but the effect does not happen for many years, we can expect to see an immediate improvement in business investment. Today those companies are sitting around, watching what we are doing and deciding whether or not to invest, and there is no way that they are going to invest until they see action by this parliament to demonstrate that they should invest.
So, if we are worried, as we all should be, about the declining rates, the low rates, of investment in Australia, and the impact that that has on the take-home pay of workers and on the returns for retirees in their retirement, then the best thing we can do is not just pass part of this package but pass every bit of this package today to deliver instant benefits to small business and long-term benefits to the country.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. We are debating a bill that I have no doubt the government will be running away from as fast as they can. We have always been very clear on this side of the chamber that Labor will not support, and will never support, cuts of tax to the big end of town and to big business. This bill gives effect to a series of 2016-17 budget measures that were aimed at reducing company tax for small, medium and large size businesses. The bill contains three measures: reducing the company tax to 25 per cent, increasing the unincorporated small business tax discount and increasing the small business entity threshold. As I said, Labor does not support tax cuts for big business. In line without position, prior to the last election we said we would support company tax for small businesses with turnovers of less than $2 million. We will be moving amendments in the committee stage to reflect our position on these cuts.
We believe very firmly that now is not the time to deliver tax relief for large businesses. Let us remember that Australia is at risk of losing its AAA rating, and this government—the one that is on the government bench—is responsible for that. The time to give tax cuts is quite clearly not now. The government is trying to deliver a $50 billion tax cut for the big end of town. That, to me, demonstrates how reckless this government is, how out of touch this government is and how this government has absolutely failed the Australian people. It has failed with its leadership, because there quite clearly has not been any proper leadership when it comes to the budget or the economy.
They trumpeted around the country during the 2016 federal election, and their big chant was 'jobs and growth'. For those that are listening in, those that have been in this chamber for some time, would remember that the former member for Bass used to have his staff every morning do a chant, 'jobs and growth, jobs and growth.' They have failed. They have failed to deliver on all of those things. No jobs have been created. We have seen a blow out in the deficit and in the net debt. We have seen growth beyond trend, wage growth at record lows and underemployment at record highs and now they want to hand out a $50 billion tax cut. After such a deplorable and embarrassing year that this government had last year, we were all hoping that they would kickstart 2017 with a few goals. But, no, they have not done that at all. I want to highlight and contrast how this side of the parliament want to spend taxpayers' money, because it is all very relevant to this bill.
In a desperate attempt to save Christopher Pyne's seat in South Australia, and to hold their seats against the trend that is across this country—that the Australian people have lost confidence in them—what they have done, and what they intend to do, is undermine an internationally recognised and nationally recognised institution that is based in Launceston: the Australian Maritime College. What they are planning to do is spend $25 million creating another institution in Adelaide. Why? It is a clear cut case of pork barrelling.
For the last 20 years or more—right back from when I worked in the state government—there has been bipartisan support for the Australian Maritime College. A lot of federal and state money has gone into making sure that it is an international leader. It is highly respected. That institution trains the world's best seafarers. They ensure that we are recognised internationally. We have international students. We have the Australian Defence Force sending their recruits and their engineers. The Navy is a great supporter of the Australian Maritime College. Only recently, in this place, the Liberal Senate team joined with us in unanimously passing a motion that we would spend more of the defence budget in Tasmania. What have we got now? We have a desperate, dysfunctional government that is putting at risk and undermining an international college, the Australian Maritime College. This is how dysfunctional this government is.
This government is hell-bent on punishing Tasmanians, because they threw out the three amigos at the last election. They lost the seat of Bass because of an arrogant, out-of-touch member. What they are doing now is trying to take revenge on the economy of northern Tasmania. I know, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, that you would share my concerns about the Australian Maritime College being undermined and what that would do not only to Tasmania but to the economy of northern Tasmania in particular.
A point of order. I draw the chair's attention to the bill, which is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016.
We give a fair bit of latitude in these debates as you are aware, Senator Fawcett. Is that your point of order?
The member opposite is misleading the house in that the college that was established, or announced recently, is a technical college not a college—
That is a debating point.
You know you are hitting the mark when you start getting interjections from those opposite. I am really surprised that the good senator would want to defend Mr Pyne's assertions by undermining a Defence Force facility, being an ex-military person himself.
In this instance, what is so critical is that the $25 million would be better placed—better served to the Defence Force and the economy, particularly in northern Tasmania—and better invested in an already established college, such as the AMC, that is recognised not only nationally but also internationally. Why would you want to support a government that is undermining that? It really disappoints me.
When we go back to this debate about taxation let us be very clear and put the facts on the table. This government is hell-bent on giving big businesses more—at this time, when our AAA rating is under threat, when we have the highest underemployment rate and when there is low wage growth for ordinary workers, they are bringing in and supporting penalty rates cuts to the lowest paid workers in this country.
We know that Mr Turnbull and his government do not believe in fairness. What they believe in is giving $50 billion to the big end of town; at the same time they are slashing family tax benefits and they are cutting health. We know they are underfunding our schools. They are attacking Medicare. And we know there are going to be 700,000 Australians who will be directly affected by this government's support for cutting penalty rates.
Yesterday, we had those on the other side trying to defend their position on penalty rates cuts, saying, 'Well, we support the independent umpire'. Quite frankly, they know that that is not true. They know they did it for trucking companies; they interfered then. But it is in their DNA not to stand up and support everyday Australians. They do not support pensioners. They accuse new mothers of rorting the system and double-dipping. We know that they have underfunded the education system. We know that they have undermined child care in this country, particularly in rural and regional Australia—and remote Australia and our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. Attacking pensioners is all right for those on the other side, but they will be very quick to get up and support Mr Pyne's and Mr Turnbull's attempts to undermine the Australian Maritime College and to waste $25 million when that money should be spent in northern Tasmania—not in South Australia trying to save their own seats.
I do not believe that this type of legislation will do anything at all. It does not matter what Mr Pyne tries to do to try and buy a seat—like Mr Turnbull tried to buy government. This legislation will not be supported, because we on this side—and there will be enough on the opposition side—know that this is bad policy. This is bad policy and bad timing. I urge everyone in this chamber to stand up against this government.
I rise to speak in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. Following on from the comments of Senator Polley, I indicate our concern about this bill. I want to put on the record from the outset that Labor does believe in responsible management of the budget. Labor also believes that a reduction in the small business company tax rate is a way to support Australian jobs and contribute to national prosperity. But we do not believe in fiscal recklessness, and that is what is behind this particular measure.
Before I talk about the measure in more detail, I want to talk about how we have come to this have this so-called centrepiece of the government's economic plan. I want to take a step back for a second and look at the shambolic decision making which has led to the announcement of this enterprise tax plan. I think the other factor here is that we need to look at the broken election commitment of the Abbott government of 2013. They promised to have a comprehensive look at our taxation system.
We know that we had the Intergenerational report. We know there was supposed to be a process following the Intergenerational report—a tax white paper and a green paper. And we know that upon the taking of office of the Prime Minister, following the demise of Prime Minister Abbott, there was basically a canning of the whole process that was undertaken to have a comprehensive look at our taxation system. There were a number of submissions. I think about $5 million in costs were incurred by the public sector in receiving the hundreds of submissions examining those submissions, not to mention examining the work that was done by organisations in contributing to that promised comprehensive review. All of that came to nothing. It was just scrapped for the political objectives of Mr Turnbull.
Then there was a series of thought bubbles that took place last year. Around 12 months ago, the Prime Minister was floating the idea of states assuming some taxation powers. We know that there was also a thought bubble in relation to the GST being increased. All of these things were ill-fated and all of these things were done in the absence of proper consultation. All of this illustrates the chaotic nature in which economic policy is being set by this government. So we did find that the government landed on this so-called enterprise tax plan. This, in our view, is fiscal recklessness. The government has sent a clear message that the AAA credit rating is under pressure. Now is not the time to put in place a structural adjustment that builds to $13 billion a year by the end of the next 10 years.
These are the economic facts. The economy is growing below trend. The unemployment rate has increased and is now close to six per cent. Underemployment is at record highs. There are fewer full-time jobs than a year ago, and wages growth is at record lows. And not only is wages growth at record lows but we also have the threat of a penalty rates cut for low-income workers—700,000 workers around the country potentially. I know that the Treasurer has indicated that, in his opinion, low wage growth is the greatest single threat to our economy. If one looks at the impact of a dramatic cut to penalty rates, surely one can see that that has to be a greater problem for us in terms of economic growth.
It was a Labor government in 2011 that saw for the first time all three ratings agencies award Australia the top sovereign credit rating of AAA. No Liberal government has ever been able to make such a claim. Since taking office the government has mismanaged the budget, tripling the deficit since the 2014 budget and blowing out net debt by $100 billion. So much for fiscal conservatism.
The government continues to receive warnings that the AAA credit rating is under threat. In July of last year Standard & Poor's put Australia's AAA credit rating on a negative outlook. S&P noted that debt could continue to rise unless more budget savings measures are legislated or there are improvements in the revenue outlook. The shadow Treasurer, Mr Bowen, has noted that Standard & Poor's is calling out the Liberal-National government for three years of fiscal failure and passing a vote of no confidence in this government's ability to deal with the budget situation. S&P also noted that, over the next six to 12 month, it would continue to monitor the success of the new government's ability to pass revenue and expenditure measures through both houses of parliament. Now is the time to work on fiscal repair, not to blow out the budget further.
Labor is serious about budget repair. We took a number of policies to the election, including a multinational tax package; abolishing the Emissions Reduction Fund; negative gearing and capital gains tax reform; and reversing the government's tax cut for millionaires. Labor has continued the work of fiscal repair, including changes to last year's omnibus bill that made the bill bigger, better and fairer, including abolishing the baby bonus and the abolition of the family tax benefit part A supplement for families with adjusted taxable incomes above $80,000. Labor is still willing to work with the government on additional savings in areas such as negative gearing and capital gains tax. Labor has a track record, both during the election and in the term of parliament, of delivering on budget repair in a way that is fair.
As the government has indicated, this bill is the centrepiece of its budget and election campaign. A responsible government would have immediately released figures of a long-term structural change over 10 years. But it was not until Labor put pressure on this issue during estimates last year that the Treasury Secretary, Mr Fraser, and not the Treasurer, fessed up on the $48.2 billion cost of this policy.
The government has form in this area, spruiking jobs and growth while doing all it can to hide the long-term impact of its centrepiece policy. We all remember the Prime Minister's train wreck of an interview with David Speers, where it was revealed that the government had no reasonable basis for withholding this valuable public information. The government knows that the release of this figure puts squarely in focus its contradiction of constantly talking about budget repair while wanting to blow a hole in the budget.
The Treasurer spruiks responsible budget management. He says:
Everything we look at in in the budget, every revenue measure we look at in the budget, expenditure and revenue, it must be fit for purpose, it must be sustainable, it must do its job and if it's not doing it, then you've got to change it.
However, when you measure this bill against the Treasurer's own words, a bill which is not sustainable and contains tax measures with questionable benefits, one can only come to the conclusion that it is seriously flawed. According to the Treasurer's own words it needs changing.
The Grattan Institute has commented that the alleged benefits of this bill have not been thought through properly. They state:
It is an article of faith in Australia's business community that corporate tax cuts are the big lever for increasing economic growth. Australia's corporate tax rate is high relative to most developed countries. OECD studies show that lower corporate tax rates tend to lead to higher investment and hence higher economic output. Many studies—including the 2012 Game Changers report for Grattan Institute—picked up this research and highlighted company tax cuts as one of the big opportunities for government to increase prosperity.
Yet ironically legislation to cut the company tax rate over 10 years has been introduced at the precise time that doubts are growing about the payback of corporate tax cuts, especially for countries such as Australia that have dividend imputation systems.
Australia's unusual dividend imputation system means that domestic investors are largely unaffected by the company tax rate since any profits paid to them are taxed at their personal income tax rate. Yet because foreign investors, by contrast, do not benefit from dividend imputation, a cut to the company tax rate provides bigger benefits to them. For those who have already made long-term investments in Australia, a reduction in the tax rate would be a windfall. Many of the international studies about the economic impacts of cutting corporate tax rates are therefore not readily applicable to Australia.
The Government maintains that the change will boost GDP by more than 1 per cent in the long-term, at a budgetary cost of $48.2 billion over the next 10 years. But the best analysis from the Commonwealth Treasury shows that the net benefits to Australians' incomes will be much smaller once profits flowing out of Australia are taken into account. Raising other taxes to compensate for the foregone company tax revenue will create their own economic costs. Because additional corporate investment will phase in slowly, the benefits of company tax cuts for Australian incomes will be a long time coming. And the substantial costs of the measure in the short term could see company tax cuts drag on national incomes for the next ten years. Weighing the balance, it is not clear that corporate tax cuts should be Australia's top priority.
It is very interesting that the Grattan Institute highlights this thinking which has emerged that company tax cuts are not the magic wand or panacea they might have been thought to be some years ago. Economic thinking has moved on but this government continues to grasp onto issues which, whilst they might make a nice headline, are not delivering for the Australian economy and the people of Australia.
The other point about this wonderful windfall for companies is that there is such a huge windfall for the major banks and overseas companies. We note that the benefits of wholesale corporate tax cuts potentially go to foreign investors. And, according to the Australia Institute, the cuts are a $7.4 billion windfall for the largest banks in Australia. We know that the behaviour of the banks has been quite deplorable over the last five to 10 years in particular. To reward that behaviour with a massive windfall in terms of a company tax cut sends a very strange message. It just illustrates the point that it is unusual for a government to be defending the banks from a royal commission at all costs yet at the same time handing out largesse to them at a time when, as we all know, they are making massive profits.
The Australia Institute in its report Company tax cuts: what the evidence shows states:
The BCA’s CEO Jennifer Westacott titled her recent opinion piece on the subject, ‘Start tax debate with right objective: Boosting growth’. The evidence presented here suggests that if there are any growth dividends of lowering the company tax rate they are so weak as to be outweighed by other factors. Neither cross-country comparison nor Australia’s own history lend any support to the ‘tax-cuts-are-good’ thesis. If the aim really is increased economic growth, then Australians would be better advised to ignore the business lobby’s call for lower company tax rates and look seriously at other policies. Australia’s golden age of economic growth, 1945 to the 1970s, was backed by full employment policies and investment in infrastructure, education, science and technology.
I believe that the case for a wholescale tax cut has not been thought through and that alternative measures, such as increased investment in infrastructure, health and education, have not been properly thought through and assessed. Indeed, the Australian Council of Social Service stated in its submission:
If Treasury's assumption that in the long term 45% of the budget cost of a 5% company tax cut is offset by higher growth and increases in revenue from other taxes, this suggests that a net $8 billion in foregone public revenue is being used to 'buy' an improvement in household welfare or spending power of much less than 0.7%. If the Treasury modelling is accurate, this is an underwhelming result.
… … …
More substantial economic benefits are likely from a range of other public policies beyond tax reform. These include taking advantage of historically low interest rates to increase public investment in projects vetted by a reputable oversight body; policies to strengthen workforce participation (especially among parents, mature age people and social security recipients); improved urban planning and investment (especially in affordable housing and public transport); and investment in quality early childhood and school education for children at risk of falling behind.
I believe that the government has not properly assessed whether this $50 billion tax cut is the best way to manage the budget when other alternatives, such as investment in infrastructure, education and health, are likely to deliver far greater returns. Given that borrowing costs are historically low and that the RBA has appealed to the government to increase infrastructure spending, infrastructure should be an area where the government can come to the table to work cooperatively with the opposition.
Small businesses make a huge contribution to national prosperity and supporting Australian jobs. Small businesses play a central role in the economy. Over two million sole traders, partnerships, trusts and small employers have helped underpin 25 years of economic growth. Labor stands by its election commitments and is prepared accept amendments to the bill that would, firstly, only reduce the company tax rate to 27.5 per cent for businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million—the threshold that remains consistent with the ATO definition of 'small business'; secondly, only increase the unincorporated small business tax discount from five per cent to eight per cent and only for businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million; and, thirdly, not proceed with the increase to the small business entity threshold. This position, costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, would save $4.4 billion over the forward estimates and $50.1 billion over the medium term.
Labor also holds to the definition of 'small business' remaining less than $2 million in turnover, as there is not a strong economic justification for increasing that threshold above $2 million. The government's own Treasury modelling clearly states that the objective of reducing company tax is to attract more foreign investment. Delivering tax relief for companies with a turnover of between $2 million and $10 million would attract little, if any, additional foreign investment, as that tends to occur with much larger businesses.
In summary, even according to the standards that the Treasurer has set himself, this bill is not ready to be passed. The budget position has deteriorated under the coalition's watch: the deficit has tripled since 2014 and $100 billion has been added to net debt. The credit-rating agencies are taking a serious look at Australia's fiscal position and now is the time to engage in budget repair in a way that is fair and to make sound investments that promote inclusive growth. The centrepiece of the government's agenda ignores the concerns of the rating agencies and instead ram-raids a $50 billion hit over the medium term. A number of groups have stated that the benefits make take time to emerge. In light of this, more productive investment in infrastructure should be considered in line with the recent RBA comments. According to the Treasurer's own words, this bill is not sustainable and it is not fit for purpose and hence needs changing.
Labor is committed to budget repair in a way that is fair. Labor has recently followed through on its commitment with the recent passing of the omnibus bill. Labor remains prepared to deliver targeted, sustainable tax cuts for small businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million per year while preserving the budget position so that other investments, such as in infrastructure, health and education, can be considered. Labor is committed to responsible budget management and to protect Australia's AAA credit rating. Labor believes that the defending of the credit rating can be achieved at the same time as proper investment in schools, hospitals and infrastructure to achieve Labor's plans for economic growth.
Labor are committed to a budget and a taxation system that link effort and reward in a fair way. We are also committed to taking responsible decisions that improve the sustainability of our public finances, reduce the risk of a credit-rating downgrade and ensure that we can make targeted investments that promote inclusive economic growth. In light of Labor's values and the findings of the inquiry, Labor oppose this bill as is currently stands and call on the government to abandon fiscal recklessness and return to the work of budget repair in a way that is fair, not in a way that means workers will get a pay cut while big businesses and banks get a tax cut.
It is a delight to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016.
I'm glad someone is delighted.
I am excited about what this bill can do for our country, Senator Whish-Wilson, so it is a delight to get up and speak on it. I will come back to Senator Ketter's contribution and the repeated mantra of 'budget repair that is fair', which, to my mind, seems odd when you are talking about spending more money. I am not sure how that repairs one's budget. I would have thought everyone in this place, everyone in this entire building, including the other place, would agree that all Australians want to see a more productive and a more prosperous Australia—a place where there are more jobs for hardworking Australians. The Turnbull government's enterprise tax plan, which we are debating at the moment, is one of the most significant reforms to Australia's business taxation framework in a generation, and I think it paves the way to those elements I just described.
This country needs a tax system that supports enterprise by backing businesses to invest. Economic activity is generated in the business community, not here in the halls of Parliament House. It also must ensure that Australia continues to be an attractive place to do business—and I note Senator Whish-Wilson's comments in his contribution, which I will cover off a little later on—and that means not just for foreign investment but also for people choosing to invest either here or overseas. It has to be an attractive place to invest their money. We want people to invest in this country, to grow our economy and to create jobs.
The 10-year program will secure our future and create jobs for hardworking Australians; it will create jobs that these people are crying out for in our regions and in our cities. It will help the 1.8 million Australians looking for extra work to boost their take-home pay, which I would have thought was something that the opposition would support, given the debate in recent days on the matter of penalty rates. When we are talking about ensuring that Australians have a decent take-home pay, those opposite are here talking about a way of preventing businesses from creating jobs. I do not know how the two match up. Improvement in Australia's living standards must be driven by a higher level of labour productivity and participation, which are in part driven by lower company income tax rates. As I have said, those hardworking Australians who want that boost in their take-home pay and who need those additional hours need that pay to cover the increased living costs we have in this country. I am sure many of us have constituents who front up to talk about the increased cost living—not to mention the cost of power, which, in the great state of South Australia, has gone through the roof, like it has in many other parts of the country. Higher health and education spending and a bigger welfare budget will not help hardworking Australians pick up extra work and extra pay to take home to pay those bills. I guess, in response, that goes to the point in Senator Ketter's contribution about budget repair that is fair by spending more on things like infrastructure, health and education, rather than, indeed, looking at how we spend that money and making sure the taxpayer—it is not our money; it is the taxpayer's money—is getting value for money. Rather than using savings to get the budget back into balance and paying huge amounts of money in interest on debts that have been accrued by those opposite, Labor wants Australians to pay more tax so that we can spend more. The real contrast here is the enterprise tax plan that this government, the Turnbull government, has rolled out, which will boost the Australian economy, create the activity we need to ensure that we have a stronger economy. This bill will provide the encouragement for employers, as I have already said, to invest and grow their businesses and provide greater job security, more employment opportunities and higher wages growth.
The sad thing I have come to realise in the public debate on this issue and the contributions that have been made so far by the opposition is that Labor thinks that Canberra knows how to spend money better than people who run small businesses—the people who want to keep their businesses in the black so that they can keep paying their employees and keep paying their bills, the mortgage on their business or their business loan facility. Labor believe that they know how to create jobs better than business and that it is a better proposition for government to keep the hard-earned taxpayer dollars in our pockets here in Canberra than allowing businesses to do more with the money that they earn. Our plan aims to give businesses the certainty they need to plan and make long-term investments that are vital for growth and boosting our national economy and productivity. Compared to many other countries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia's corporate tax rate is high. I suppose that goes back to that point that Senator Whish-Wilson made that, indeed, if it is not the highest, it is certainly up there. When people are choosing to invest, that is something they take into account. We cannot ignore that fact. Corporate tax rates that are increasingly uncompetitive will make it harder for this country to attract investment, which is a key driver for labour productivity and growth.
Fundamentally, a more competitive business tax environment would encourage higher levels of investment in Australia, which is what we need, given the falling levels of private investment as we move from the mining investment boom of the last decade. Again, fundamentally, more economic activity provides more tax income. When businesses are earning more, when people are earning more, they are paying more tax. When they are spending more, they are paying more tax. So, freeing up these dollars, putting them back into the economy, allowing businesses to invest, to spend and to buy new infrastructure and putting it back into the community generates that tax revenue. So I do not actually understand Labor's opposition to this and, indeed, that of many on the crossbenches. So it is vital that we give business every opportunity to invest, to innovate, to grow and to employ more hardworking Australians.
As part of this plan, as it has been covered off in this debate by a number of speakers previously, and I am sure it will be again, we are going to back small business by reducing their tax rate to 27½ per cent, starting with small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million, on 1 July this year. That oft used phrase that small businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy is absolutely right. In the small towns of Tasmania, where I am from, these small businesses are the source of employment for people. There are not major factories anymore. There are not the large manufacturing facilities. There are small businesses. And we need to back them. They are the home of Australian enterprise and opportunity. Indeed, they are where many big ideas are born, ideas we try and foster and we want to see more of, so we can create more jobs in our regions. This set of measures is one way of assisting us to do that.
Across the country, small businesses employ over three million people and in 2013-14 added around $340 billion to our economy. We need to reduce the tax burden on small business first and, as many—not companies—will extend the unincorporated small business tax discount from 2016-17, the discount will be available to businesses with annual turnover of less than $5 million, up from the current threshold of $2 million. It will be increased to eight per cent. The maximum discount available will remain at $1,000.
Over the next decade, the discount will be further expanded in phases to a final discount at 16 per cent. This means that every year around 2.3 million businesses will, potentially, have access to the unincorporated tax discount. Further support will be provided for small businesses to expand and create jobs. Access to a number of tax concessions will be provided by increasing the threshold for these concessions to $10 million, up from the current $2 million threshold. These changes will benefit over 90,000 businesses.
Focusing on contributions of those opposite and the record of the opposition, it is important to reflect on some things that have been said and put on record by them. During the last election, last year, we saw much commentary on the government's tax plan, with Labor cherry picking what they would support and what they would not—which is, again, what they are doing here today—but what we, actually, saw was the Labor Party at odds with what their predecessors had been saying for decades.
There is no denying that the Labor Party cut company tax in the past, and they did it not once but twice. Between 1983 and 1996 the Hawke and Keating governments cut company tax from 49 to 33 per cent. At the time, these measures were sold as an immediate boost to business confidence and an incentive for increased corporate investment in Australia. It is amazing now how, when this government is attempting to do something that will stimulate economic growth and invest and job creation, they rail against it. One has to ask if it is simply political opportunism. To quote Labor's 1993 tax policy:
This measure will provide an immediate fillip to business confidence, as well as permanently increase both the incentive for companies to retain earnings and the relative attractiveness of corporate investment in Australia, with consequential beneficial effects on employment.
Funny, I've heard that before. I think it may have been in relation to our policy. So I wonder why they are now opposing it. It must be noted that this measure was implemented when the budget was in deficit, and had been since 1990-91, and would continue to be for the remainder of former Prime Minister Keating's time in office.
Turning to the Gillard government, they went to the 2010 election promising a cut to company tax from 30 to 29 per cent—again, to encourage investment and job creation across Australia. That is a quote from their policy. Labor's Creating jobs and skills in Australia policy stated:
We will cut the company tax rate to 29 per cent for all Australian companies to stimulate investment across the economy.
… … …
A lower company tax rate will increase investment, raise productivity, and increase the real wages of working Australians.
In March 2012 then Treasurer Wayne Swan made their position as clear as could be:
We intend to fight tooth and nail to get this general company tax cut through …
… … …
We want a general company tax cut.
But Prime Minister Gillard had to concede that despite how much Labor wanted to deliver the measure they could not, as they could not get the legislation through parliament.
On the current Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party of today, the Leader of the Opposition expressed enthusiasm for company tax cuts when it was Labor's policy. In November 2010, as the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, he told the Australian Services Union National Conference that Labor's plan to cut the company tax rate would 'keep all sectors of our economy competitive in their own global markets'. Again, I do not know why we have deviated from that position across the way, there, in the current debate.
Come on, fire up!
I will, thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I have a few points I want to make with reference to your contributions a little later on.
We should never forget we are just one option for international investors and we have to make sure we offer the most compelling value. That is exactly right. What has changed? The world still has a global market, where people are choosing where they invest their money. Why has that changed, in Labor's opinion? I do not know. Why Senator Whish-Wilson does not believe that is the case, I do not know. Someone who has a stronger background in finance than me, I would think, would have accepted this.
At the same ACOSS conference in March 2011 that Bob Brown addressed, Mr Shorten argued against the Greens' proposal to spend the expected proceeds from the mining tax on a national dental care scheme or an increase to welfare payments rather than a company tax cut. Mr Shorten said:
What this proposal, as well meaning as it might seem, what it fails to recognise is that we need to encourage employment participation, not greater welfare dependency.
Friends, corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.
Then, in August 2011, Mr Shorten told parliament:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
That was a bit of a snapshot of where Labor have been on this issue over a number of years, and it is a real contrast to where they are today. It just begs the question: is this nothing more than political opportunism, opposition for opposition's sake? Australia deserves better than this.
Shame!
It is shameful, absolutely, Senator Dastyari, that it is opposition for opposition's sake.
Going to a couple of the contributions my colleagues have made in the debate so far, I want to reiterate the points I made earlier with regard to Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution. Senator Ketter made the point that it is all about foreign investment. It is about foreign investment, but it is also about Australians being able to choose whether they invest here or abroad. If it is more competitive for an Australian, a business or an individual to invest in a market where it is more competitive then we need to compete against that to attract that investment back to Australian shores. I think there was also a claim, through one of the references that Senator Whish-Wilson read out, that at a time when there was an exceptionally high tax rate there was increased foreign investment. I am not sure whether Senator Whish-Wilson was indicating that we should increase the company tax rate to stimulate foreign investment.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
I find it amazing, Senator Whish-Wilson, that you believe increasing the company tax rate would stimulate foreign investment in this country. In fact, I find that unbelievable. Moving off Senator Whish-Wilson's contributions, I want to touch on something that Senator Polley raised at length in this debate, and it is relation to the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania. While it does not directly relate to the bill at hand, I think it is important to respond at least in part to what Senator Polley said. A lot of mistruths and misrepresentations were put onto the Hansard during Senator Polley's contribution. The one correct thing Senator Polley did say was that there is a bipartisan approach on the part of the Tasmanian Labor and Liberal representatives in the federal parliament when it comes to ensuring Tasmania gets its fair share of defence spending. I would be very interested to know why Senator Polley wants to try and conflate issues. What has been announced in Adelaide is a technical college that will train shipbuilders, people who design and build ships. But what we have in Tasmania is a facility that trains seafarers. These are two quite different propositions. This commitment demonstrates that the Tasmanian AMC is part of the broad jigsaw; we have a strength, and it is part of the broader framework of defence training and capability in Australia. It is disappointing that Senator Polley has misrepresented what has actually been announced, has tried to conflate issues and has then gone on with the character assassination of the former member for Bass.
I want to briefly touch on Senator Ketter's contribution as well. He made the point that the economy is slowing down and the government needs to act. I go back to the point that I have made on a number of occasions now: to stimulate the economy you need to look at things like tax reform and cuts to tax rates to encourage investment, to encourage spending and to create more jobs. That is how you stimulate the economy. You do not stimulate the economy by investing more in government spending as Senator Ketter said. That is not stimulating the economy. It is not sustainable to just rack up more debt, tax people more and drive down the strength of the private sector in this country. To stimulate the economy, which is where Senator Ketter was going with his contribution, you need to create an environment where the private sector can thrive and create the jobs we need. I would be interested to know how many of those who have made a contribution so far, including Senator Polley and Senator Ketter, have owned and operated a small business and been responsible for the payment of salaries.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
I acknowledge that Senator Whish-Wilson has been, and may still be, an employer—I am not sure. But that is right: you have to have an understanding of how business operates. When you have never been responsible for the payment of people's wages and ensuring businesses are paying bills so that the jobs can continue and the business remains afloat it is ridiculous to come in here and tell us that tax cuts are a bad thing. I call on the opposition and those on the crossbench who are not supporting the bill to jump on board and support this good legislation. This is once-in-a generation reform that will actually go a long way to drive our economy, create jobs and create the investment that we need, particularly in regional Australia. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That resumption of the debate be an order of the day for a later hour.
Question agreed to.
I move :
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I seek leave to move a motion to exempt these bills from the bills cut-off order.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2016-2017
SECOND READING SPEECH
Today, the Government introduces the Additional Estimates Appropriations Bills. These Bills are:
These Bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016 -2017 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $2 billion.
I now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill.
First, this Bill would provide the Department of Defence just over $810 million. This includes approximately $36 million for Operation Highroad and largely reflects the net effect of the reallocation between operating and capital costs, partially offset by the impact of foreign exchange movements.
Second, just under $200 million is proposed for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2016-17.
This includes approximately $64 million to enhance Australia's border protection measures and support for the resettlement of refugees processed at the Regional Processing Centres on Nauru and Manus Island, and around $100 million to support the accommodation and processing of Illegal Maritime Arrivals at Regional Processing Centres.
Third, the Department of Human Services would receive just under $156 million. This includes approximately $77 million to progress Tranche Two of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program.
Fourth, the Department of Health would receive just over $143 million. This includes approximately $30 million to commence modernising the information and communication technology systems supporting the health, aged care and related veterans' payments services; around $28 million to strengthen mental health care in Australia; and $10 million to support the establishment of a national research network that will focus on improving childhood cancer survival rates.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements tabled in the Parliament.
I commend this Bill.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2016-2017
SECOND READING SPEECH
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016 -2017, along with Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2016-2017, which was introduced earlier, are the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills for this financial year.
This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $284 million.
I now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill.
First, this Bill would provide the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development just under $119 million in 2016-17 including $81 million in equity funding to the Australian Rail Track Corporation to deliver network upgrades.
Second, the Department of Human Services would receive just over $79 million. This includes around $41 million in capital funding to improve some of the IT systems that support its client management.
Third, the Environment and Energy portfolio would receive just under $11 million, which includes supplementation for foreign exchange movements to the Bureau of Meteorology and the Department of the Environment and Energy.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimate Statements tabled in the Parliament.
I commend this Bill.
I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017. This package of bills is required to ensure the ordinary functions of government continue for the remainder of this financial year. The bills appropriate a total of around $2.2 billion in the 2016-17 financial year. This is in addition to the amounts appropriated by the supply and appropriation acts last year.
Labor will support these bills. The funding appropriated is already incorporated into the bottom line, as presented in the midyear update late last year. But it is worth just reflecting on the fact that around three years ago the Liberals declared that there was a 'budget emergency', yet since then the budget deficit and net debt have continued to grow. In fact the budget deficit has tripled since 2014. The government's first budget predicted the deficit for 2016-17 at about $11 billion; now they say it will rise to $36.5 billion this year. And from the day the government took office net debt has increased by about $100 billion. The 2016 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook shows that it is expected to reach $317 billion this year.
The government's failures are putting Australia's AAA credit rating at risk. A downgrade in the rating would smash confidence in our economy and drive up mortgage repayments for families. The government promised 'jobs and growth', but instead what we are seeing is that the economy is growing below trend, the unemployment rate has increased and is now close to six per cent, underemployment is at record highs, there are fewer full-time jobs than there were a year ago, and wages growth is at record lows. Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are not managing the economy or the budget in the interests of middle- and working-class people.
Today the government is pressing ahead with its $50 billion tax cut for big businesses and the banks, tax cuts which we simply cannot afford. Despite the deficit and debt blowing out, and the Treasurer saying that 'we must act to protect the revenue base from structural weaknesses', this government still persists with its $50 billion ram raid to the budget. The economic benefits are also dubious. From Treasury's own modelling, there is a one per cent growth dividend from a tax cut to 25 per cent, and that would occur in around 20 years. We also heard that a full-time worker on average earnings will receive $750 a year flowing from this $50 billion company tax cut. That is $2 a day in 20 years time. And then there are the interest charges. When the government borrows $50 billion to give to big business, it will cost Australians around $4 billion in extra interest charges. This equates to around $162 for every single man, woman and child in the country.
While the government wants to give big business a handout, it is still pursuing many of the unfair measures of the disastrous Abbott and Hockey 2014 budget. Last year's Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Outlook showed that the Turnbull government was still committed to freezing the Medicare rebates. This is despite health stakeholders including the AMA, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the Consumers Health Forum, the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association and the Rural Doctors Association sending a clear message to the government that its health policy is pushing general practice and primary care to the brink. GPs and patients are continuing to bear the brunt of this budget saving. Last week the government proceeded with its cuts to Australian families by freezing the family tax benefit payment rates for two years. These cuts will affect every single recipient of the family tax benefit, leaving 1.5 million Australian families worse off. Around 588,000 of these families receive the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A, which means their household income is less than $52,000 a year. Also last week, with the passage of the government's childcare bill, the government failed to ensure vulnerable children will retain access to a minimum of two days care.
The government is also supporting penalty rate cuts which could see up to 700,000 Australians lose up to $77 a week. The decision to cut penalty rates for hospitality, retail and fast food workers is a devastating blow for the low-paid workers that rely on them. The government could vote against the penalty rate cuts, but, while it stands up and fights for big businesses and the banks, it seems that it will not stand up in the same way for working people. Recent work by the Australia Institute shows that, in addition to being a direct cut to low-paid workers' pay, the impact of the penalty rates decision could be a $650 billion impact to the budget bottom line.
We all know that budgets are about priorities, and we can see this government's priorities are focused at the big end of town. We have inequality at a 75-year high in this country, and yet this government seems intent on giving millionaires a tax cut of over $16,000 when the deficit levy ceases on 30 June this year.
Labor has worked, and will continue to work, constructively with the government on budget repair that is fair. We are demonstrating with our policies and with our actions that budget repair can be fair and that we can satisfy three key objectives of economic policy: to ensure that growth is inclusive, that hard work is rewarded and that there is a decent safety net for those who are left behind. We have negotiated with the government to secure $6.3 billion in budget savings—more savings than the government initially put forward in their first omnibus bill. In doing so, we protected vulnerable people targeted by cuts and saved the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. We have put forward sensible and well considered policies that improve the bottom line of the budget. We have led the debate on superannuation tax reform, on cracking down on multinational tax avoidance, and on tobacco tax reform. We were pleased to see that the government picked some of our policies, including the increase to the tobacco excise, changes to VET FEE-HELP and opposing the return of the baby bonus. We have also led the way on proposing changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing which not only would be good for the budget but would also help level the playing field for first home buyers trying to get into the housing market at a time when housing affordability—certainly in some city markets—is at crisis levels.
In conclusion, Labor will support this bill. We will also continue to lead the way when it comes to setting the policy agenda and fixing the budget. We will continue to play that constructive role that the people of Australia expect us to. We will agree with budget repair measures where we can, and we will disagree where we must. We will not support measures that unfairly target the most vulnerable people in our community nor ask them to carry the heaviest burden for the government's budget failures. We will keep offering alternative, responsible policies and savings measures, as is our role in opposition, and we will always prioritise budget repair that is fair.
I would like to thank Senator Gallagher for her contribution to this debate, and I commend these bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
In accordance with the provisions of standing order 115(4) I will call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate approves the advances provided under the annual Appropriation Acts as a final charge for the year ended 30 June 2016.
Question agreed to.
While I am in the chamber I will give a shout out to the delegation of New Zealand parliamentarians that is in my office right now.
Yesterday, I was reminding people about what ANTaR had written in their submission to the inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. They said:
Far from being a theoretical discussion, racial discrimination has a very real impact on mental health and wellbeing for First Peoples.
They said in their necessarily quick submission to the inquiry held last Friday:
Racism and discrimination contribute to poor mental health, increased self-harm and suicide, decreased school attendance and lower workplace productivity, and participation in society more broadly.
When releasing their reconciliation barometer earlier this year, which they do every two years—so this is using 2016 data—ANTaR said that the government needs to start looking at first people's lived experience of racism and leave the RDA protections untouched.
The national reconciliation barometer showed an increase of racism experienced by our first peoples. They found that racism towards first peoples has increased from 39 per cent to 46 per cent since the last barometer, in 2014. I remind people that the latest data was collected in 2016. That is a significant increase in racism towards our first peoples. They found that one in three Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had experienced verbal racial abuse in the six months before the survey. The anecdotal feedback from a number of Aboriginal people I have spoken to is that it certainly has not gotten any better since then. In fact, it may have gotten even worse. Given the negative impact on health and wellbeing of racism, if we are going to close the gap it is absolutely vital that we maintain protections against racial discrimination. In other words, racial discrimination has a direct impact on people's wellbeing, and we need to address that if we are ever going to close the gap by our agreed target dates.
To say the community's support for retaining the current wording of section 18C is overwhelming is an understatement. We know that racial discrimination and vilification remains a major challenge in Australia, and the barometer pointed that out. If anything, that challenge is growing. The Scanlon Foundation's most recent report found that the proportion of Australians who have experienced racism in the past 12 months has grown to 20 per cent. That is one in five Australians.
We only have to observe the general tenor of comments online, under news reports, on social media and in forums, to see that a significant number of people in this country currently feel very free to unleash racist, bigoted, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic diatribes in public. We only need to read one of the countless experiences recounted in submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into section 18C to know that racism remains an ever-present problem. We must be especially vigilant now that a significant proportion of our community has been energised by the election of Donald Trump. People have responded by feeling much freer to be racist in that environment.
If you have never experienced racial discrimination or abuse, you only need to listen to those Australians who have. They know how utterly destructive to a person's sense of self it is. If you listen to people, listen to their experiences, you know it is having a significant impact on that person's sense of self. To be so often attacked about something as arbitrary as the colour of your skin or the clothes that you wear or the country of one's birth is just utter nonsense. So it is in this environment of rampant xenophobia, of racist trolls, of growing experiences of racial abuse and discrimination—you only had to listen to Senator McKim reading out those tweets under #freedomofspeech last week to know of the dozens and dozens and dozens of experiences that people were reporting of abuse. We only have to look at those experiences to ask the question: what does the government seek to achieve by these changes? Why are they trying to make it easier for people to be racist? Why are they sending this signal to the community that it is okay to launch racist diatribes at people?
These zombie measures should not succeed. We should finally put them to bed—in fact kill them off. Why does the other side of this chamber, the government, continue to pretend this is about freedom of speech? I really do not understand just how it is that people like the Attorney-General, like Senator Abetz, like Senator Paterson want to be able to say what they already say. Let us take their argument at face value and assume that they are all currently being muzzled by swathes of politically correct red tape that prevents them from truly expressing themselves. I am not aware of any principle of libertarianism that seriously proposes that freedom of speech is or should be an absolute or unfettered freedom. We have always accepted legitimate restrictions on our freedom to say exactly what we would like to say. We all seem to accept laws that protect us against reputational damage—libel or slander—or that protect us from violent threats. The basic principle of libertarianism is that we should all be free to do or say whatever we want to the point that our expression of freedoms cause genuine and unjustified harm to others, such as, for example, what I described about the impact on our First People's mental health and wellbeing.
I do not think anybody seriously accepts that racism does not cause genuine harm. As I have outlined, it clearly does. That is the whole basis of the Racial Discrimination Act itself, which is our acquittal of our international legal duty under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is genuinely difficult to decipher the argument of the small number of right-wingers in their own little echo chamber that want these changes. We hear them froth and rant about the words 'insult' and 'offend' and declare that there is no right to not be offended, that causing offence is central to the principle of freedom of speech. But they ignore the fact that the words 'insult' and 'offend' have been applied very strictly in the courts. It seems to me they just want to be able to make unfettered racial comments and to abuse people.
Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on the planet. Multiculturalism is what we do better than anywhere else in the world. It is our great advantage; it underpins so much of our ongoing peace and prosperity. It is a large part of why so many people want to visit here and why so many people in fact want to come here to live, to migrate here. We have just started a Senate committee inquiry into how we can strengthen Australia's multiculturalism even further. We know, even before it starts, that multiculturalism is an asset for all of us.
In technical terms, sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act established the legal case to be applied by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the courts when assessing complaints about racial hate speech. But section 18C is also highly symbolic. It represents our continued commitment to multicultural harmony. It sets the absolute minimum conditions for public engagement in our overwhelmingly successful multicultural society. I just do not see why this small group of hard Right, Dad's Army opponents of 18C want so badly to attack it. Hundreds of people have spoken to us in the last few weeks and months about racial hate speech, and about the continued need to protect Australians against it. I am sure every senator in this place has in fact had many phone calls and emails about that, and other personal communications and meetings.
There are some people in our country who are genuinely afraid of the tenor of some of our public debate and where it might lead in the future—and, again, I have had multiple conversations exactly along those lines. There are many, many Australians who have experienced just what can happen when racial hate speech gets out of control. Rightly, Australia is seen as an oasis of peace away from the hatreds that have been allowed by the political leaders to bubble up in other places. Our Racial Discrimination Act underpins that peace. For very good reason it had bipartisan and then tripartisan support until very recently, when this small group of people who do not represent broader Australia and their opinion, as has been evidenced by many, sprung up, with the support of some media outlets, to run their campaign to undermine our Racial Discrimination Act.
But we Greens will not support it. We will stand in opposition to their moves to undermine the act and undermine section 18C. We will stand firm with millions of Australians who live and work and breathe our wonderful, multicultural reality every day. We will continue to work with them to strengthen our community, not divide our community. We say no to racism, and we say no to the changes that in fact will undermine our multicultural society.
I have had the privilege of contributing to this debate a number of times in this chamber, so I will not go over too much old ground today. I will not go over the arguments about the importance of freedom of speech. I will not go over the evidence that the administration of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by the Human Rights Commission has been incredibly flawed. I will not go over the recent cases that show the harmful impact that this law has had on journalists, cartoonists and students.
There are two things I want to do today. The first is to respond to an argument made by Senator Siewert which has become a bit of a catchcry of those who are opposed to changes to 18C. They like to ask, 'What is it that you would like to say that you cannot say under this law but you would be able to say if the law changes?' It is a question they ask often. It is a question that they assert is not answered and has not been answered, but the only way they could have that view is if they have not been actually listening to those who have a different view in this debate, if they have not been following the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on this issue and if they have not been following the debate closely, because this question has been answered, and I am happy to answer it today.
It is a question that Senator McKim asked at the human rights committee hearings, which we very much enjoyed participating in together around Australia. He asked it at every hearing that I attended except one. That was the Brisbane hearing. Senator McKim was not able to be in Brisbane for the Brisbane hearing, and that was a shame because there was a witness at the Brisbane hearing who had a very good answer to that question. His name is Alex Wood. He is a former student at the Queensland University of Technology, and he was one of the respondents in the QUT case. Alex had heard this question was being asked, including in the hearings, so he came prepared to answer it. Unfortunately, he was not asked it by Senator McKim, because he was not able to be there, but he was asked it and he did answer it. He said that the thing that he would like to say that he is not able to say under the current law is that his university, QUT, is 'stopping segregation with segregation'. That is in fact what Alex Wood did say on Facebook on the day that he was kicked out of an unsigned Indigenous computer lab at his university.
It took Alex 3½ years and a torturous legal process, which has disrupted his life, had a severe financial impact on him and his family and the other people involved in this case and potentially damaged his career, to finally establish—after this torturous 3½-year process—that in fact he could legally say that, but not without going through that process. If there are those that argue that we should not be able to say that, fair enough, but I think it is very difficult to argue that it is fair or necessary that someone like Alex Wood should have to go through that process to establish that he should be able to say that.
The main purpose for my contribution to the debate today on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is to address one issue that I have not specifically addressed in detail in this debate so far, and that is the argument that those in favour of changing 18C, such as me, fit certain demographic attributes. It has been pointed out that some of us who are advocates of change to 18C are white. It has also been pointed out that some of us are men. And it has also been pointed out that we are men of a certain age. I think I may fail to qualify on that final category, but I certainly qualify on the former two categories. It is said that, because we are white men of a certain age, we have not experienced discrimination, and therefore we should be much more careful in advocating this change.
It is something I have considered carefully, and I have two ways in which I would like to respond to that. The first is that freedom of speech is a right of every Australian, and every Australian has an equal right to participate in the debate about free speech and to advocate sincerely for their point of view on free speech. Your gender, your race and your age have no bearing on your right as an Australian citizen to participate freely in public debate.
The second thing I would say, though, is that a corollary of this argument is the statement that is often made that ethnic communities are united in opposition to changing this law. It is certainly true, and we heard during the committee process, that many of the peak bodies that represent ethnic communities are opposed to and are concerned about changes to this law. But I believe it is incredibly patronising and condescending to not realise that there is active debate within many ethnic communities, as there is in every community on every public policy issue, and that there is a great diversity of opinion within ethnic communities on the desirability of change to 18C. I believe that those who are saying that ethnic communities are united and monolithic in opposition to this either have not been paying attention and have not been listening to the ethnic voices who are in favour of change or have decided to ignore those voices because they are inconvenient for their arguments. Either way, I think that is wrong and does not do these advocates of change justice.
That is one thing I would like to correct today by taking the opportunity to read into the Hansard the words of some of those people who have experienced discrimination in their lives, have been on the receiving end of racism, but nevertheless strongly and passionately support freedom of speech and strongly support the case for change in this law. The first is a gentleman by the name of Gideon Rozner. In the interests of full disclosure: he is an employee of my former employer, the Institute of Public Affairs, and a friend. He is also a Jewish man. He wrote in the Herald Sun in December 2016:
… many Jewish Australians, myself included, share the same concerns about 18C as an increasing number of people in the wider community. Specifically, that banning forms of expression merely because they are "insulting" or "offensive" is inherently incompatible with the right to free speech.
He goes on to say:
… the open and free society that we enjoy is as fragile as it is precious. It relies on fundamental civil and political rights, not least of all the freedom of speech.
Robert Magid, the publisher of The Australian Jewish News, wrote on 15 September 2016 in his publication:
The point about free speech, for which, over centuries, many have died, is the right to disagree. As Bob Dylan sings: 'You're right from your side and I'm right from mine.'
One man's bigot is another man's courageous defender of what many decent people think and feel. It is in the nature of satirists, comedians and cartoonists to exaggerate and very often offend. Inevitably they end up being called bigots as in the recent case of Bill Leak, one of the least bigoted people I know. Should these critics of society be looking over their shoulder to see whether the sheriff is about to take them on a perp walk?
To them it is Section 18C which is intimidating. It is not only the legal definition that is in question, but the public perception that criticising behaviour of another people in a way that might insult and offend can lead to litigation.
Dr David Adler was a powerful witness before the human rights committee. He is a member of the Sydney Jewish community, and he believes that Jewish communal organisations have not reflected well the diversity of opinion in his community. He cited, in support of his evidence, other prominent Jews who feel same way as he does, such as lawyer Geoffrey Bloch; former judge Jim Spigelman; and the New South Wales Rabbinical Council, which has been concerned about this law and is in favour of changing it. He wrote in The Spectator Australiaon 11 March this year:
What 18C does is to unreasonably constrain free speech in a manner inconsistent with Jewish theology, academic development and values. There is no evidence that 18C is an effective tool in changing a trend of anti-Semitism (there are much more effective tools) and such a law risks serious adverse consequences.
There have also been a number of prominent Indigenous advocates for change, such as Warren Mundine, Anthony Dillon and Wesley Aird. I want to quote two advocates for change who I think have contributed very powerfully to this debate. Kerryn Pholi, who is an Indigenous woman, also writing in The Spectator Australia on 26 April 2014, said:
I hereby demand freedom from protection from this thing we call 'racial vilification'. I do not wish to be protected from the opinions of others. I demand the right to hear the views that other people may wish to express about me. I want this because I do not see how forcing others to shield their true opinion is of any benefit to me. Rather, it infantilises me by suggesting that I cannot handle the ugliness of life. Silencing or concealing the ugliness also exposes me to unnecessary risk, since if all others were free to express their views openly, I could at least make more informed choices about whom to associate with and whom to avoid.
Jacinta Price, a councillor on the Alice Springs Town Council, wrote in The Australian on2 February this year:
The Racial Discrimination Act's 18C treats us Aboriginal Australians as infants who can't speak or stand up for ourselves. It treats non-Aboriginal people as if they have no right to hold an opinion about anything that relates to us, especially the problems of our own making that are killing us.
… … …
The way to beat racism is through debate, not the closing down of debate.
Another advocate for change is Irene Moss. She is a significant advocate for change for a number of reasons. Yes, she is a woman with Chinese heritage, but she is also a former Race Discrimination Commissioner, and it was her inquiry in 1991 that in part led to the adoption of section 18C and is often cited as a justification for the adoption of section 18C. But Irene Moss does not agree. She believes that 18C is in need of reform. In an interview with Chris Merritt from The Australianon 6 March this year, she said, of the law adopted in 1994:
It had 'ignored the inquiry’s warnings that an offence which was drafted too broadly could lead to trivial complaints and confusion'. 'The current controversy with respect to section 18C was predictable,' she said.
She is in favour of reform which removes 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' from the law, which is strikingly similar to what the government has proposed. She said:
'In 1991, the report of the national inquiry into racist violence recommended that the legislation should not be about hurt feelings or injured sensibilities but should focus on incitement to racial hostility …
'I continue to believe that that … was essentially correct.'
Opponents of the bill might feel it is easy to dismiss my view or the views of Senator Smith or other colleagues in this place who do not meet the right demographic criteria, according to them, in order to have the right to participate in this debate. They may disagree with people like Irene Moss, Warren Mundine, Anthony Dillon, Wesley Aird, Jacinta Price, Kerryn Pholi, Gideon Rozner, Robert Magid, David Adler, Geoffrey Bloch and Jim Spigelman, and they are entitled to. But they should at least have the decency to recognise the great diversity of thought and opinion within our ethnic communities.
I would encourage them to consider that, around the world, limitations on free speech generally have been aimed at minority groups, not at benefiting them, and have come at their great cost many times throughout history. Freedom of speech—the ability to freely debate ideas and stand up for the things we believe in—has always been the best guarantor of a tolerant and harmonious liberal society. It is what has helped Australia be as tolerant, harmonious and prosperous as it is today. It is what helps other countries around the world which share our values reflect that same tolerance and harmony.
I believe that the government's bill strikes the right balance in ensuring that we do have free speech—that people, whatever their background, have the right to stand up and say what they believe and argue sincerely in favour of it, and that it remains unlawful to abuse someone on the basis of their race, as it should be.
I rise to speak on the government's Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. However, I do find it somewhat ironic that its title is 'human rights legislation'. Labor made its choice long ago, and that choice was to stand with multicultural Australia and stand against bigotry. It was Labor that introduced both section 18C and section 18D, and we will always stand firm in protecting them.
Sadly, our Prime Minister seems to have made another decision. He has chosen to fundamentally undermine the provisions of sections 18C and 18D, despite his promises not to. All this will do is make it easier for people to insult or humiliate others on the basis of their race. It is galling to me that the government chose Harmony Day last week to outline their plans to weaken protections against racism in our country.
Sections 18C and 18D were introduced by the Keating government in response to a number of reports on racial violence, including the national inquiry into racist violence by former race discrimination commissioner Irene Moss and the great Australian lawyer Ron Castan QC. It was also in response to royal commissions and other inquiries into our international obligations.
These provisions are designed to capture not only harassment but also broader campaigns and factions of racial humiliation offence and abuse. Sections 18C and 18D have been established for all the right reasons, and 18C has embodied Australia's condemnation of racial vilification and protected our society from the poisonous effects of hate speech, so they should be protected. At the same time, 18D has operated to protect free speech by providing exemptions for artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.
It is notable to me that, as Professor Triggs highlighted to our Senate committee last week, with the Bill Leak cartoon that has been so much of the motivating force that has brought us into this debate today an 18D application was never made. It is clear that the government in putting this legislation forward has not been listening to people who have experienced racism.
The idea of moving to a definition of 'harassment' seems to have been put forward by, as far as I can tell, only one member of the joint committee that inquired into this matter. The fact we have this legislation before us at all is a testament to the fact that the coalition has been held captive to a right-wing agenda that is completely out of touch with the lived experience of Australians who have experienced racism and, for that matter, with the priorities of the broader Australian population, who would prefer their politicians to be thinking about creating jobs, quality public services, education and training, and more. Section 18C has been an ideological obsession of the right wing of the Liberal-National Party, which sadly our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is too weak to do anything about. Let us not forget that Tony Abbott also tried to introduce these laws when he was Prime Minister.
Labor, on the other hand, I am proud to say is steadfast in its position. Section 18C is good law. It has functioned well for two decades and it has protected our multicultural society. I remember growing up in the 1980s, when the word 'boong' was commonly directed at my Indigenous school peers. It is little wonder to me that they did not stay at school. I remember racist slurs against my Asian friends on the bus: 'gook, chink' were, again, all too common. I remain ashamed that I did not have the courage at the time to stand up for them. I have certainly witnessed how recently xenophobia and Islamophobia, some of it emanating from this very place, are driving racist sentiment and with it racist actions towards other Australians.
We have as much need as ever for the protections of 18C. We are all innately equal as people—however, this law undermines the principle of our universal equality as people in a couple of really problematic ways. The idea that 'harassment' is better than or even, frankly, equal to 'offend, insult and humiliate' as a legal test is ill founded. As the many Indigenous people and people of multicultural background have said, 'What is it you would like to be able to say that you're currently prohibited from saying?'
While the government may be able to draw on some high-profile individuals, as Senator Paterson highlighted, of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds who are supporting changes in the law, I can highlight to the Senate today that that is not the case when it comes to mainstream ethnic and Indigenous Australia. Dr Soutphommasane said to estimates last week:
There will no doubt be a variety of opinion within many communities on this issue, as there would be on any other issue of public policy, but it is my considered assessment that, of representative community organisations covering multicultural, ethnic and Indigenous communities, an overwhelming number of them, if not uniformly the case, would not be comfortable with any weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Currently, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act reads:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
The changing in the wording in the legislation before us reduces the protections that are afforded to victims of racial discrimination and racial hate speech by narrowing the scope of behaviour that may constitute offending conduct. The Federal Court has recognised the difficulties with 18C applying to 'offensive, insulting and humiliating acts' by interpreting it so that it only applies to 'profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.'
I remain equally confused as to why the government might choose try to remove the word 'humiliate' when controversy around this matter has generally only focused on the words 'offend and insult'. It is also unclear why the word 'harass' has been chosen instead of other options. We have had no opportunity to canvass these issues through the Senate committee. Legal practitioners and organisations have expressed their concern about how the word 'harass' will be defined. The Law Council made a plea to our committee raising concerns that it could denote proximity between two people and would not cover situations where racial hate speech is, for example, used in a media article. The changes would also result in a period of uncertainty about the scope of the new provision, which, I feel, is an irresponsible move by government.
In the new so-called objective test in 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, we see the introduction of a 'reasonable member of the Australian community' as the objective standard for determining a breach of 18C, instead of the test that the court currently applies of 'whether an act is reasonably likely in all of the circumstances' to have the relevant effect. Changing the test defining whether someone ought reasonably feel harassed by someone's actions from the target group at whom the insult or offensive action was directed at to a so-called 'ordinary person' who is not part of the group at whom the offence was directed is an extraordinary thing to do.
On that note, I think it is worth highlighting that it is all too commonplace in our Australian society that racist talk does take place. I note specifically that it takes place often while the group that is targeted by such talk is not in the room. If no-one feels offended or takes offence on behalf of those who were the target of the offence, does that represent the new 'ordinary person' test? The court should, I feel, be able to take into account the relevant context—namely, the fact that racial vilification is directed towards people of a particular race. They need to be able to take this into account when assessing whether it is reasonably likely that a group would be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated. So the changes to 18C combined with the change in this objective test are a very insidious combination.
I want to highlight some of the other changes in this bill—namely, the complaints-handling processes of the Australian Human Rights Commission as set out in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. These changes have not been subject to proper consultation. The bill was introduced last Wednesday and it was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I am a member. We tried to extend the time that we would have as a committee to look at these changes, but we were deprived of that opportunity. Our capacity within the Senate committees to look at these issues has been fundamentally undermined.
No Indigenous Australian representative bodies were invited to appear before our committee. I did ask Senator Macdonald on Thursday evening—and I gave him forewarning that I wanted Indigenous organisations to be able to appear. However, the government majority deprived them of being able to give their evidence. This is a disgraceful example of arrogance on the part of this out-of-touch government. I note that both the Human Rights Law Centre and FECCA gave evidence at the hearing. Both groups talked about the importance of 18C and 18D. They gave a range of insightful evidence to the committee, including evidence relating to increased levels of racism, vilification and verbal abuse that has been occurring in the community—frankly, talk about 18C is giving licence to racist hate speech in the community.
The public hearings also drew our attention to evidence from the Human Rights Commission about the flaws in the procedural changes. I note that the government has committed to amending schedule 2. I am not yet at liberty to see what changes the government is making. This is, again, a real demonstration of what is a fundamentally flawed and rushed process. In evidence before the committee, I saw an exchange between Senator Brandis and Professor Triggs, where essentially they were working out whether they would have time to sit down and look at further amendments to the bill. That kind of process, where discussion between the Human Rights Commission and the government itself was still taking place, has deprived members of the Senate of being able to consider what amendments they are putting forward. I do not know yet whether agreement has even be reached.
The commission highlighted how a number of recommendations would result in additional red tape and would likely cause additional delay and added costs to parties to complaints, as well as impeding access to justice in relation to meritorious complaints. I know Labor has put forward amendments. We are yet to see if the Human Rights Commission's concerns will be addressed by the government and how our amendments may marry into the amendments put forward by the government. Again, it is another example of a flawed process. What I note here is that these changes will impact on thousands of complainants and respondents who use the commission's complaint-handling processes. Here again we have had a tiny bit of consultation around 18C. The previous inquiry that took place—I did not see consultation with disability groups, LGBTI organisations or women's organisations, who will all be affected. The universal changes to this legislation will change the nature of the way these things are managed for everybody, across all grounds. There has been no consultation with people about those matters.
These issues need to be resolved, otherwise the government should withdraw them. I look forward to advice to the chamber about where these issues are up to. I can only hope that, after this legislation is dealt with, the folly of those on the other side in relation to this matter will be laid to rest. It is a sad fact that, while those on the other side of the chamber keep the door open on this debate, we are also opening the door to people's self-proclaimed—as Senator Brandis would put it—right to be a bigot. The effectiveness of our Racial Discrimination Act is founded on the fact that there is no such right. As a result of there being no such right, racist actions and racist language in our community is curtailed. The idea that racists have anything legitimate to say that deserves to be heard must be done away with once and for all. There can never and never should be a right in this country to be a bigot. I do not want my son to grow up in a country where people have the right to offend, insult or humiliate another person based on their race or frankly any other attribute.
Listening to the comments today, I, like a lot of Australians, thought to myself: why are we taking up so much precious time in this parliament debating this issue? It is because political correctness over the years has shut us down from having an opinion or a say. The thought police have intervened. The lefties are out there shutting us down from having an opinion on most things, and this is where section 18C has come into play.
All I hear in this chamber are the words 'racist comments'. Let us define what 'racist' means. It means that you believe your race to be superior to another. Making a comment on an issue does not necessarily mean you are racist. They use that word because it is supposed to shut down debate. They have used it against me so many times over the years that it has become boring, and they do it without really debating the issue or what I am trying to say.
A lot of people think that because you are a white Australian you do not have racist comments directed at you. You might be surprised, but I have had racist comments said to me. But I let it go over the top of my head; it is water off a duck's back. It happened in 1996, when I went out to have a meeting with some Aboriginal elders. The media turned up, even though I had said the media were not to be there. I wanted to sit down and talk with these Aboriginal people. But it was set up and the media turned up. When I approached the elders, they called me 'white trash' and 'a pig in mud'. I was abused. I just turned and walked away. But next day The Courier Mail wrote up the story with 'white trash' and the 7.30 Report reported the story. It was filmed. I approached them and said, 'What do you think about this?'—not at the time, because I did not worry about it, but in a conversation later. They said 'So what?' There was no issue about it and they could not care less.
I think what has happened over time is that there is reverse racism in Australia. Australians are feeling the brunt of this and are fed up. That is why they are talking on talkback radio and amongst themselves. They are fed up with where the lefties have this debate going. Yes, there have been issues from the new migrants that came to Australia, especially after the Second World War. I have heard the terms that the Italians were called, such as eyeties or wogs. Those references were made. I actually mixed with Greeks and Italians at the fish markets. They were great mates of mine. We had talks and discussions. The older generation just chuckled and laughed it off. They got on and worked in with the Australians. Now it has gotten to the point in this country where you cannot even look sideways at anyone. We are all from different cultural backgrounds and races, but this is pushing us into segregation. That is how I see it. We have to start working together and stop being so precious that we cannot say anything to anyone.
Section 18C has the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate'. The other side says, 'What do you want to say that you can't say now?' But that is missing the whole point. It is not about what you want to say; it is about the right to have an opinion. I can look at someone of another culture and say, 'I don't particularly like your cultural dance,' or, 'I don't particularly like your cultural dress.' That might be a personal opinion that I have and they may be offended by it. Am I therefore, because of my personal opinion, supposed to be dragged before the Human Rights Commission under the Racial Discrimination Act? We have to get real here and stop putting these ideas into people's heads.
I go back to the students from the University of Queensland. Three students turned up to use a room which had a sign saying 'Aboriginals only'. That is racial discrimination in the first place. Why didn't those students go and report the head of the university, or whoever put that sign up, for racial discrimination in the first place? They did not. But they were accused. That is segregation. That is division. That is what is happening in our country. Australians have had at gutful and are sick and tired of it. This needs to change. Treat everyone on an individual basis, not on the basis of their race or the colour of their skin, and we will have a much more harmonious country.
A case was laid against me in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by the Aboriginals. I will fill you in on why this happened. I stood for election in 1996. I was elected after being thrown out of the Liberal Party. Next day The Australianrang me up to for an interview. I did the interview and called for equality for all Australians. I made reference to the Greeks, the Italians and everyone. The Australian printed a headline the next day saying that Hanson refused to represent the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For 18 months I was accused of this. It was a headline on the front page. It came up many times in interviews.
That was not the case. I was taken before the court and Sir Ronald Wilson, after listening to the full tape, came down with the finding that I never said anything racist whatsoever and that I was calling for equality for all Australians. A lot of people would not even think this to be the case, but I have worked with Aboriginal people over the years. I have had many come to my office asking for assistance. I work with these groups. I will work for, fight for and defend anyone, regardless of their cultural background. That is my job as a member of this parliament and a representative of the people of Queensland, and I have always been of that opinion. In light of that, I am also a very proud Australian. I am proud of my culture and my heritage. I welcome people who come to this country. I always have done. That is the way my parents brought me up. I respect people based not on their race or who they are but on how I find them and how they treat me.
I go back to these university students. The claim was that the woman or the teacher wanted $250,000. After the stressful time that the students went through and the cost to them of legal representation, she asked for $250,000. What was that going to do? How was that going to appease it? I see this as a process of monetary gain. That is what it is and that is what a lot of people using this are all about. It is for monetary gain, no other reason.
I had Gillian Triggs, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, in my office. She said to me: 'Section 18C needs to change. It needs to go.' She deals with this. She admits it. I think about section 18C. Sheikh Shady has said that AIDS is divine punishment and that women would be hung by their breasts in hell. What about those comments? Do I hear people from the Left screaming about these comments? I remember hearing one time that, with the way women dress in this country, it is nothing but a meat market and they deserve to be raped. Where is the Left, where are the greenies and where are the others screaming that this should not be said?
What about signs of people speaking out against us the Australian people? Those on the other side of this house and on the crossbench are screaming for the rights of migrants and everyone else who comes to this country but they do not stand up for the Australian people. I do not want to see division in this country. I want to see everyone treated equally, on the same basis, and on a needs basis. That is what a lot of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders want as well. The laws that have been brought in here over the years are causing segregation and separatism. That is what we do not want. They do not want it. They do not want to be treated any differently. If we continue to make laws with that division, it is not going to be right or good for us. We are all Australians together.
I will go back to the wording in the bill. The wording is 'offend, insult, humiliate'. As I said earlier, anyone can take offence. Everyone has a different opinion on what may offend them. A lot of people get offended very easily, so then they are going to make their complaints. It says 'insult' and 'humiliate'. I support changing the words to 'harass' and 'intimidate'. We do not want that happening in our country. Some people do need that protection. I think the words 'offend, insult, humiliate' are too broad and it is up to the individual about how they feel about it.
This all comes down to the pub test: how does the average Aussie feel about this? That is what it is all about. I may raise issues that many Australians talk about in their kitchens and around their barbecues. They talk about them but do not come out openly and say anything. These are the people who voted for One Nation in the last election. That is why there are now four One Nation senators on the crossbench. If I were saying things that were offensive to the Australian people, we would not be here. They would not have voted for us. I represent a good majority of the Australian people. To have gotten three seats in the upper house in Western Australia just a couple of weeks ago is a clear indication that people want representation from One Nation.
We are here with an open mind, not to shut down the people but to give everyone from whatever race the right to have a say and an opinion and be part of this country, to join in, to be Australians. That is what we stand for. Shutting us down is not the answer. You call us racists and bigots. As I said, the word 'racist' means to believe your race to be superior to another. I have never, ever said that. I challenge anyone to show me anything I have said that has been racist. You use the word 'bigot'. There are many people—and I am sure everyone in this chamber—who are a bigot in their own way, because you can be intolerant of another person's culture or religious beliefs. That is the human race. That is who we are because we are proud of our cultural background. It is about having respect.
Debate interrupted.
I rise to reflect today on the value of the resources sector in this country historically, in the present day and going forward. Historically, we often forget the importance of the resources sector in each of our then colonies and now states, such as your own then colony of Victoria, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall. There was an influx of people in the 1840s and 1850s into Bendigo and Ballarat, chasing gold. They came from all around the world—China, America, Ireland and England et cetera. When you look at Queensland, for example, there is the Maranoa, with its rich gas fields; the Surat Basin; the Bowen Basin; and the Galilee Basin, which is soon to be opened up. Tasmania's economy was for a long time dependent on mining on the west coast. Savage River in the north of that area is a very rich iron ore deposit. In South Australia, Olympic Dam is underpinning the economy of that state, with its mining activities. In the home state of Senators Cash, Smith and me, again, historically, when gold reduced on the Victorian fields, many Victorians came across to Coolgardie, Kalgoorlie and Norseman. Indeed, it is a fact that Western Australia would not have joined the Federation had it not been for the overwhelming number of Victorians who said, 'If you don't support Federation, we'll form our own state.' It was that that caused Winthrop Hackett of The Western Australian newspaper and Sir John Forrest to urge that we did join the Federation, and that is why Western Australia is not named in the early words of the Constitution. The goldfields continue. The Golden Mile is still one of the biggest gold producers; indeed, it has one of the largest open cut goldmines in the world. More recently, over the last 30 to 40 years, there has been the opening up of the Pilbara, Mount Newman and, on the coast, oil and gas activities.
I had the privilege last evening of attending the Minerals Council of Australia 50th anniversary function and the launch by Professor Ian Harper of the Deloitte Access Economic review into mining and into what they call the METS—the mining, equipment, technology and services sector in this country. I commend this report because of its importance, not historically now but in the present day and going forward. I think these figures are remarkable. I will quote them from the Deloitte Access Economics report:
The total economic contribution of Australia’s mining and METS sector in 2015-16 was $236.8 billion, representing around 15% of the Australian economy. This economic activity supported a total of 1,139,768 FTE jobs across Australia, which represents around 10% of total FTE employment.
That was for the last full financial year. It goes on to say that, in the Pilbara of WA, total economic activity of mining and METS was just under $38 billion, representing 88 per cent of its activity. In the Surat-Bowen basin in Queensland, it was $18.6 billion, representing 63 per cent of regional economic activity. In the Hunter region of New South Wales, the total economic contribution from mining and METS was $15.2 billion, representing a third of economic activity. Let me repeat that figure because I think it is remarkable: in 2015-16, the contribution of the mining and METS sector was $237 billion, representing 15 per cent of the economy and 1.4 million FTE jobs across the country.
Another point being made in the Deloitte Access Economics report is that, whilst productivity is phenomenal, we must ceaselessly move to increase productivity. Again, I made the point only recently in this place that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are the two biggest taxpayers in this nation. When royalties and resource rent taxes were taken into account two years ago, BHP Billiton paid more than US$8.7 billion to the Australian government and state governments, particularly our own, representing a tax rate of 47 per cent. Their tax rate is 47 per cent. In 2015, Rio Tinto paid in excess of $1.5 billion in tax and another $1.4 billion in royalties to either the federal or the state governments. It is critically important that we in Australia understand the importance of the resources sector and, indeed, the fact that it underpins regional activity in Australia. The report goes on to say that in the Hunter Valley, there were 94,000 jobs in 2015-16 from the resources sector. In Queensland, in the Bowen-Surat basin, there were 100,000 jobs alone. In the Pilbara, there were 93,800 jobs from that sector. If we are to see continuing value to the Australian economy, continuing value for employment, particularly high-value employment, we must extend the productive life of mines. We must get better yields. We must continue to drive occupational health and safety and wellbeing and, of course, we must continue to apply the knowledge of research.
For those who have had the opportunity of going to both BHP and Rio's facilities in Perth to watch the management of mine sites, the loading of trains, the conduct and transport of freight, the actual loading onto ships, all done automatically from Perth—from St Georges Terrace, in the case of BHP—and the Perth airport, it just shows the level to which Australian resource technology is at the forefront.
We know this when we speak about other countries in which mining activities are undertaken. We know that most of the mining activity in Africa is managed from within one kilometre of the Premier's office in West Perth. In Panama, it is not known, the world's largest copper mine is being built by Western Australian expertise through First Quantum. Our opportunities in Mexico, particularly for mining drilling and equipment, are absolutely legendary. For young Australians, for high-value employment and export, the opportunities in that sector are enormous.
In the few minutes left available to me, I will reflect on the comments of the head of Chevron, Mr Nigel Hearne, made on 21 March and the US$100 billion Gorgon and Wheatstone projects. I like to compare that US$100 billion to the total value of the Snowy Mountains scheme if it were built today: it would be A$9 billion—less than 10 per cent of Gorgon and Wheatstone. What will these two projects, alone, deliver to the Australian economy over the 30-year life of Gorgon and Wheatstone? They will deliver more than US$1 trillion to Australia's GDP. That is 150,000 full-time equivalent high-paying jobs over that 30-year lifetime and about $340 billion to the federal revenues of this country. You can double that figure when you look at other LNG projects either underway or planned.
In this country we must have good laws. We must have a fair taxation scheme. We must have a capacity to compete with the rest of the world, because it is a highly competitive world in which we live. In conclusion, I do recommend, to those listening who may have an interest, Deloitte Access Economics' review launched last night into the value of the resources sector in this country. It is new information that all thinking Australians should have.
I believe in the power of education to change lives. Education brings significant benefits to the individual and society and it allows individuals to gain access to better career opportunities and better life outcomes for themselves and their families. I also believe that access to a quality education is the right of every student. Every single student, no matter where they come from, no matter what their family background, should have access to a quality education. It is a right that we in this place should be ensuring. Whether it is in regional Tasmania or inner-city Sydney, it should not matter.
Labor believes that education funding should be needs based. In government, Labor recognised the urgent national importance of excellent and equitable schools and commissioned the biggest review of our school funding system in 40 years, the independent Review of funding for schooling. The review involved more than 70 education groups, 39 school visits—in every state and territory—and more than 7,000 submissions. This review, colloquially known as the Gonski review, found that falling attainment and growing inequality needed to be urgently addressed. The Gonski funding model is designed to ensure that all children are educated in properly resourced schools. The essence of Gonski is that funding goes to the schools and students who need it most, regardless of whether they are public or private. Not only is this important from an equity perspective but also it maximises the impact of the funding. Study after study has found that targeting funding at the most disadvantaged schools has the greatest impact.
Last week, on Wednesday, 22 March, the Gonski bus came to Canberra—in fact, it came to parliament—to promote the Gonski funding model, which is under threat by the Turnbull government. I joined with my Labor colleagues, including Justine Keay and Brian Mitchell, the members for Braddon and Lyons, AEU officials and community supporters in Federation Mall to stand up for the Gonski funding model. Tasmanian educators were ably represented by Helen Richardson, from the AEU, whom I spoke with about the important improvements Gonski funding has made to education in Tasmanian schools. Labor leader Bill Shorten spoke to the media about Labor's ongoing commitment to properly funding education and our ongoing commitment to needs based funding.
The Gonski bus tour is part of the AEU's I Give a Gonski campaign. The bus tour began simultaneously in Adelaide and Brisbane, at the beginning of March, before travelling across South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, finally finishing in Canberra last Tuesday. The Australian Education Union and I Give a Gonski community members travelled on the Gonski bus across Australia, sharing stories of some of the fantastic things Gonski needs based funding is making possible in our schools. The tour marked the launch of volume 2 of the AEU's Getting Results: Gonski funding in Australian schools report, which contains the stories of 24 schools that are using their Gonski funding increases to lift results. Its aim was to raise awareness of the need to secure the full implementation of Gonski funding and, in particular, to explain why the Turnbull government should honour years 5 and 6 of the Gonski model.
I would like to thank all the hard-working members of the AEU for their commitment to fight for this important cause. This needs based funding started in 2014, and its impacts are being seen around the nation. Schools are using the funding in ways that help improve results, such as reducing class sizes, employing additional specialist teachers in areas such as literacy and numeracy, providing greater assistance and support for students with disabilities or behavioural problems, and building the skills and knowledge of teachers through additional training. Where the funding is being delivered, schools are reporting that it is making a real difference for students. Schools across Tasmania—and across the rest of Australia—are extremely happy with the additional funding the Gonski funding model has provided.
A survey that the Education Union recently released shows that 90 per cent of principals are grateful for the extra money and can point to the benefits of it. That is an incredible figure. The additional funding is making a real impact. However, this Turnbull government will not commit to the funding in 2018 and 2019. This stupidity makes me angry. Mr Turnbull wants us to give $50 billion worth of tax breaks, mostly to big business, including over $7 billion to his mates at the big banks, yet the government cannot properly fund our children's education. My Labor Party colleagues and I believe that we can properly fund education for Australian students, in accordance with the Gonski funding model, whereas those on the government bench just do not want to. They would rather give their friends in big business a tax break. They should be ashamed and hang their heads.
Tasmania has signed a six-year Gonski agreement with the Commonwealth, where state and federal governments jointly invest in our schools, but Mr Turnbull does not want to honour this side of the agreement. This is despite the Liberals promising before the 2013 election that they were in lock step with Labor on education funding, that they were on a unity ticket. Only a fraction of the Gonski money has been delivered so far in Tasmania, with the largest amounts due to flow in the next two years. The federal government share is $100 million in 2018-19. At the end of the day, it is clear that the Liberal-National government does not care about properly funding our schools.
Labor does care. Labor's 'Your child our future' policy, which we took to the last election, represents the most significant improvement in school education in Australia for two generations. Improving education is the key to opportunity, innovation and the future economic and social prosperity of our nation. No matter what their background, no matter where they live—city, suburbs or in the regions—and no matter what type of school they go to—government, Catholic or independent—Labor wants every child to have the same chance of succeeding at school and in life as any other child in the country. Under 'Your child our future' the Gonski funding and reforms would have been delivered on time and in full, and the Turnbull government's cuts would be reversed. This $37.3 billion investment would have seen every child in every school funded on the basis of need. Our plan would have driven reforms that improve teaching and learning—securing Australia's long-term economic future and giving students the basic skills they need for the jobs of the future. 'Your child our future' would have ensured that all student are supported to improve their literacy and numeracy skills and reach their full potential.
Labor's plan will deliver more one-on-one support and attention for every student; early intervention programs in every school so that students do not fall behind; remedial literacy and numeracy support in every school; extension classes to challenge students who are excelling in class; increased year 12 completion through more alternative and vocational pathways so all students leave school with the skills they need for jobs in the modern economy; access to specialist allied health support such as speech and occupation therapists; a focus on evidence based teaching and learning to make sure our schools do more of what works and less of what does not; and more subject choices and more extracurricular activities. With the increasingly intense global competition for innovation and creative and skilled people, Australia needs to work harder and more cleverly than ever to maintain a knowledge and skills base that can adapt to change and keep up with the world around us. Australia's declining education performance internationally is something of which no Australian can be proud.
In closing, committing to the Gonski education funding model should be seen by all in politics as the right thing to do. Additional school funding is an investment and we want to see the best possible return for every student and as a country. It should be clear that ensuring our children get the best possible education, no matter their background, is the best thing that we can do for our country. It is extremely disappointing that those opposite will not commit to the full Gonski funding model for 2018 and 2019. I am appalled that they do not understand the importance of these great reforms. We need to send a clear message to the government that Australians believe in education funding and want to stand up for Australian schools and Australian students. If you want to show your support to Australian students and schools, please sign the petition at www.igiveagonski.com.au/savegonski so that the government gets the message. Almost 11,000 Australians have already signed the petition. Please add your signature, because our children deserve the best education they can get no matter where they come from, no matter what their background is and no matter what school they attend.
On 11 March 2017 we marked the sixth anniversary of the great Tohoku earthquake off Japan's Pacific coast. Nearly 20,000 people died as a wall of water hit the coast less than an hour after the earthquake. Meltdowns at three of the four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant wrecked the nuclear power station irretrievably and thousands of tonnes of radioactive water began pouring into the Pacific. The Japanese government commenced drawing up plans for the evacuation of the northern half of Honshu island, tens of millions of people, including everyone in Greater Tokyo. Six years on, the reactors still smoulder, and the robots sent in to try and get a picture of what was happening inside the core all failed from radiation damage within a few hours. Six years on, Tohoku needs less 'ganbatte' and more direct support. At least 80,000 people remain evacuated.
On 11 March 2017, exactly six years later, the people of Western Australia went to the polls and cast their judgement on the Barnett government. Perhaps these events seem unconnected—but they are not. In October 2011 we established in this parliament that the Fukushima reactors were loaded with uranium from Australia. And, since the state election that threw the Carpenter Labor government out of office in 2008, WA had been in the firing line for a massive expansion of uranium mining. A little bit of history: WA Labor have traditionally been strongly opposed to uranium mining but, as is so often the case, they sometimes try to have it both ways. Rather than banning the industry while they were in government, they placed an administrative hold on mining licences but seemed indifferent to the exploration rush that was sending drilling rigs out across the Pilbara, Kimberley, Goldfields and Mid West. This was in the heady days, if you can recall, of President George Bush's 'nuclear renaissance', a gust of concentrated delusion that sent world uranium prices skyrocketing.
WA Labor voted down Greens WA MLC Giz Watson's bill banning uranium mining on at least two occasions that I can recall while they were in government, but right before they lost the 2008 election, in an act of desperation, Premier Carpenter committed to banning uranium if re-elected. Of course, that was too late. We then had to contend with eight years of Premier Colin Barnett coddling the uranium sector with cash incentives, delisting thousands of inconvenient Aboriginal Heritage sites, sidelining environmental law and overruling the EPA, and basically acting like BHP and Rio Tinto's most obedient employee.
Of course, in the meantime the global nuclear industry had begun its slow tumble into total obsolescence, and the writing was on the wall well before the disaster on Japan's Pacific coast. The uranium hopefuls began to fall apart one by one. A wave of bankruptcies and fire sales was occurring even as the Western Australian antinuclear movement stepped up with renewed strength to directly challenge the dwindling handful of companies that remained. Each of these companies was burning through its cash in order to beat the deadline of Premier Barnett's defeat on the anniversary of the triple meltdowns at Fukushima, in the hope that the incoming Labor Government would let them get on their feet.
Of course, we are not going to let that happen, and we will fight until this industry is put to rest—not for reasons of ideology or nostalgia for the 1970s but for the same reason that we banned asbestos mining. This mineral is harmful in ways way more far reaching than asbestos. Uranium brings nothing but contamination and misery, locally where the impacts of mine tailings, radon dispersal and the poisoning of water turn mine sites into sacrifice zones, and globally where the consequences of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste are still incomprehensible, it seems, to the governments that continue to promote them.
I am incredibly proud to have been a part of the Western Australian antinuclear movement since around 1998. What we have seen is that, with a low uranium price, strong sustained community resistance and a lack of cross-party support for uranium in the west, none of the four proposed mines have begun to secure a social license and none of them have achieved full and final approvals, and that was the then opposition leader Mr Mark McGowan's condition. I think it was unwise and went directly against WA Labor Party policy, but nonetheless that was what Mr McGowan took to the election. He said that mines would need to have secured financing and to have had all of their final approvals in hand, and of course none of the four uranium mines that are left from that land rush of the 1990s and early 2000s are anywhere near those final approvals. WA Labor's clear policy position was that those projects would need to have been completely approved, and the fact is none of the four have a final investment decision. In fact, Cameco had written down the value of the Kintyre uranium deposit, which is the second largest uranium deposit in Western Australia, to zero.
But in the meantime we have had tiny companies like Toro working on the Wiluna project, which crosses two lake systems and is proposed to use 10 million litres of water a day and leave behind 50 million tonnes of low-level radioactive waste in the floodplain on the edge of a lakebed. This is not nuclear waste in the form that comes out of a nuclear power station; it is very finely powdered, radioactive, carcinogenic sand that has been released from the geological containment that has held it in place for millions or tens of millions of years and brought to the service and made bioavailable. It thereby makes its way into the food chain, into the hydrological cycle and into the bodies of the people who have hunted that ground for tens of thousands of years.
I am proud to have been able to associate with extraordinary campaigners from the Aboriginal communities most directly impacted. The nuclear industry, whether it be nuclear weapons testing, nuclear waste dumping or uranium mining, has always hit Aboriginal people the hardest, whether it be here in Australia, in Canada, in the United States, in Eastern Europe or anywhere you care to turn. Traditional owners, elders and activists—people like Geoffrey Stokes, Kado Muir, Richard Evans, Mr Glen Cooke, Curtis Taylor, Vicki McCabe, Jeanette McGrath, Janice Scott, Bruce Smith, Bruce Hogan, Debbie and Libby Carmody, Shirley and Elizabeth Wonyabong, and all the elders from Parnngurr and other communities across Western Australia—are people with grace, dignity and an important and powerful story to tell.
I have been very fortunate to have spent brief periods of time on the Walkatjurra Walkabout, where the global antinuclear campaign is directly linked with care for country and care for culture by the people who have carried and transmitted these oral histories and oral stories for tens of thousands of years about the country that Premier Barnett and his acolytes—now no longer in office and not missed—have proposed to violate. They have done absolutely everything that they could in the eight years in which they were in office to bring these projects to fruition.
I also want to acknowledge and congratulate my old friend, colleague and mentor Robin Chapple MLC, who on 11 March was elected to a fourth term in the Legislative Council for the Mining and Pastoral Region. Robin Chapple was the first one who got me north of Geraldton on a tour that we did in 1999 of the various proposed uranium mine sites around WA, and I am proud to say that not a single one of those places has gone into production since Robin took me for that extraordinary three-week trip around Western Australia. Not a single uranium mine has gone into commercial production in Western Australia.
Our challenge, obviously, to Mr McGowan is just to uphold the commitment that he took to the 2017 state election. In recent days, senators might have seen Mr Bill Johnston, the mines minister, off freelancing and saying, 'Oh, of course they can go ahead.' Not only was it not Labor Party policy; that position had not been to cabinet and had not been cleared with his colleagues. We will just have to assume that Mr Johnston was freelancing and either had not read the policy that state Labor took to the election or had not actually done his due diligence and checked to see whether the companies had their final state and federal approvals in hand. When he does that—and I am sure that he is in the process of doing that at the moment—he will discover that not one of the four projects meets the criteria set by Mr McGowan before the election.
Western Australia is an incredibly precious place, and outback Western Australia and the regions—where some of these politicians just look at the lines on maps and consider that these places are terra nullius, empty land or radioactive sacrifice zones—are incredibly important to the people who have lived there and been custodians of that country for tens of thousands of years. We look forward to the incoming Labor government, and I genuinely congratulate them on their thumping win over the pro-uranium and pro-nuclear Colin Barnett. We look forward to them upholding their commitment and legislating to ban this toxic and dangerous industry from Western Australia once and for all.
It was just over two years ago this month, on 5 March 2015, that I drew the attention of this chamber to a matter of increasing seriousness for many pastoralists across Western Australia, one that should be of growing concern for everyone living across my great state. The issue, of course, was wild dogs and their propensity to attack livestock across Western Australia anddestock pastoral lease holders of a viable source of income. Two years later, wild dogs are continuing to cause havoc and heartache for many Western Australian pastoralists, especially those located in the southern rangelands of Western Australia, as well as sheep farmers in the north-eastern Wheatbelt. Wild dog attacks are now estimated to cost the Western Australia livestock industry around $8.7 million annually in lost production and management time, and are becoming both an economic and social drain on many regional communities, with more and more stations and farms forced to destock.
Two years ago, I mentioned the devastating impact that destocking had on the Dowden family, who live at and run Challa Station in the Murchison part of Western Australia. Challa Station has been in the Dowden family since 1888, and ran some of the largest flocks in the state until Ashley and Debbie were forced to destock in 2008 because of wild dogs attacks. I mentioned Ashley and Debbie's words back then. Ashley and Debbie said:
We were mustering for shearing and putting them in holding paddocks and going in the next morning and there were dead sheep everywhere from dog attacks.
The goats disappeared, followed by the sheep … and they paid the bills. If we were lucky, there was a bit left over to put in the bank to cover the hard times.
The pastoralists themselves were the next to go and next, of course, will be the sustainability of the land, because no-one will be left to manage it.
The devastating flow-on effects from wild dog attacks are enormous. Many pastoralists, after being forced to destock, are faced with selling their station at a loss and trying to find work in an economy where regional jobs are scarce to say the least, or, like the Dowdens, faced with the challenge of switching to cattle, which is a more costly exercise, especially when you do not have an income due to stock losses from wild dog attacks.
With no sheep, there is no work for shearers, no work for wool pressers, no work for fencers, no work for caterers and no work for shed hands—many of whom are local Indigenous people. With work drying up, people move to other locations, destroying the viability of local businesses and sporting and service organisations, adding to the pressure on regional towns across Western Australia.
Unlike those on the other side of this chamber, I and my Western Australian Liberal colleagues, particularly the member for Durack, Melissa Price, have—as have many of my coalition colleagues in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—visited the stations and farms and listened to farmers and pastoralists like the Dowdens, whose lives have been so drastically affected by wild dog attacks. We have been active participants in baiting days, by cutting the meat, preparing the baits and, most importantly, sitting with pastoralists and their families and listening to their concerns and pushing for action: action like the completion of the Murchison region vermin cell fence, a 480 kilometre fence line that is needed to again make the wild dog problem manageable; action like repairs to the state barrier fence; and action like funding for executive officers for regional biosecurity groups to coordinate wild dog control activities.
Earlier this month, I was pleased to visit outside of Geraldton—almost 450 kilometres north of Perth—joining the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash, to announce $2½ million in federal funding to boost wild dog control management in that part of Western Australia. Consistent with the Western Australian Wild Dog Action Plan—another initiative funded in part by the coalition government—$1½ million will provide much needed support to landholders to increase their capacity to manage wild dogs by working more effectively with industry and community biosecurity groups. A further $1 million in competitive grants will go to regional wild dog fencing.
While this announcement is a great outcome for regional Western Australia and for affected communities, especially across the Mid West of my state and is also a positive sign of growing cooperation between the state and the federal governments on this issue, there remain concerns from those from the front lines over how this funding will best be managed. Again, I commit to them that I will be a champion for their local interests to make sure that that federal funding finds its way to their local issues.
Murchison Regional Vermin Council chairman and Yalgoo shire president, Neil Grinham—who runs Meka Station—said in Farm Weekly on 10 March: 'Funding was always welcome, but it had to be put to good use and not go to waste as it had in the past.' Part of the problem, according to pastoralists like Neil Grinham—who has been fighting for state and federal funding for wild dog control since the mid-2000s and whose shire is primarily composed of 26 pastoral stations, all of which have been decimated by wild dogs—is that the state wild dog action plan, which provides a $20 million commitment to wild dog control, does not recognise the importance of ground projects like the Murchison cell fence. In the Farm Weekly article, Neil goes on to say: 'This funding will be for trial cluster fencing. It will cost us and not be as effective as vermin fences, baiting and dogging programs.' He goes on to say: 'If I had a choice on what to do with the $2½ million, I'd put the Murchison fence up, and if I had more money we would break it into cells to control the outside.' He goes on to say: 'We need to stop them,'—the wild dogs—'moving south. We need to close the gap first.' He goes on to say, 'It is like we are living in a boat with a very serious hole in it.'
These sentiments are echoed by Murchison pastoralist Ashley Dowden, who said in the same article in the Farm Weekly: 'Any funding to go towards dog control is good, but there are holes in the state plan, but, as I see it, it will fail because there is no money for ground work and no money to clean the dogs out.'
Two years ago, I laid down the challenge to then WA Minister for Regional Development, Terry Redman, to give this project his urgent attention and provide some hope and assistance in a part of WA where it is desperately needed, because this issue has gone on for too long and has now become the subject of bureaucratic pettiness. Today, two years later, I lay down the same challenge to the new Minister for Regional Development and Minister for Agriculture and Food, Alannah MacTiernan, to not ignore the plights of the pastoralists in the Murchison and to fund this fence. I challenge the new Labor government to put aside Labor's partisan approach to regional Western Australia and to not play politics with the livelihoods of WA pastoralists, their families and their communities. Federal or state; Liberal or Labor: we all have an obligation to do more to assist in this critical matter.
The pastoral industry is and always has been the major source of economic wealth in the Western Australian rangelands: creating jobs and empowering communities. While the small-stock pastoral industry continues to decline, mostly due to wild dog attacks, it is not too late to save this important industry. As I have mentioned in numerous addresses to this chamber, the ability of our nation's regions to achieve their potential requires a government with the commitment and drive to turn talk into action. We are all living witnesses to how inaction on wild dogs has permitted the destruction of much of the small-stock industry in Western Australia—inaction caused by ignoring the pleas of landholders and giving preference to the self-interest of external stakeholders and departmental bureaucrats. Today I add to my calls by calling on Alannah MacTiernan and the new state Labor government in Western Australia to give their utmost attention to the urgent need to combat the plague that is wild dogs across the rangelands of Western Australia.
Today I rise to speak on a growing and persistent concern, that of regional inequality. I do so because time and again our rural, remote and regional areas are ignored by this government. It is a government that makes countless promises for the regions, but whose actions are completely out of step with what regional Australia needs. It is a government that talks big about supporting the regions, but who fails to make headway in improving the lives of workers in regional Australia.
Today, I am going to take the Senate through eight key areas where this government is failing regional Australia and, in particular, failing the people of the northwest and west coasts of Tasmania: employment, incomes, education, the cost of living, health, welfare dependency, transport and communications. In each area, statistics show that the northwest and west coasts of Tasmania are doing much worse than the eastern suburbs of Sydney. You may say this is a false comparison, that of course those living in the heart of Australia's biggest city are going to be better off than people in regional Tasmania. But it does not need to be like this. We have enormous power in this place to support all Australians, from people in Wentworth to people in Braddon. Today I will place on record in this place that at this point in time we have in cities like Sydney, in electorates like Wentworth, one Australia while in regional areas like the northwest and west coasts of Tasmania, in electorates like Braddon, we have another Australia. This is the Wentworth index, as related to Braddon.
Turning to regional employment, it is clear that there are fewer job opportunities in northwest Tasmania than in the Prime Minister's electorate. In fact, the unemployment rate is nearly twice as high. This disparity is amplified in the areas of the northwest that are already struggling. Places like Wivenhoe, Upper Burnie and East Devonport all have double-digit unemployment. Young people in my region looking for work face a challenge that is almost twice as difficult as those in Wentworth. This is intensified by net migration to and from the regions: young people leave the regions in search of jobs, only to be replaced by older people who will soon need an array of services.
Another critical disparity between Braddon and Wentworth on employment is the number of families where no-one works. Without exposure to working culture, it is even harder for children to aspire to work themselves, creating intense cycles of poverty that is a critical issue for the regions. In northwest Tasmania around one in five families with children aged under 15 years are jobless—one in five—while in the Prime Minister's electorate barely one in 20 families are in this situation. While this is terrible for those in his community, the collective effect on those youths in northwest Tasmania, who not only do not have a parent in the workforce but also might not know anyone at all who works, is devastating. This naturally leads to income inequalities, not only because are there fewer job opportunities but also because the income people earn—from their labour, their small business or their investments—is considerably lower than in Wentworth.
The average worker in Braddon earns almost half of what the average worker in the Prime Minister's electorate earns. While workers in the Prime Minister's area of eastern Sydney earn on average almost $90,000 a year, workers in northwest Tasmania earn more than $40,000 less a year. Small business owners, like tradies or small family shops in northwest Tasmania, will earn on average four times less than in the northern part of Sydney's eastern suburbs. And, of course, income is also from investments, and this level for Braddon is five times lower than for Wentworth. In northwest Tasmania investment income is, on average, around $5,000 a year, while in the Prime Minister's suburbs it is a whopping $25,000 a year—five times higher than northwest Tasmania, and, indeed, three times higher than the Australian average. This income gap will only get worse over time if the current government gets its way on cutting company tax for big business, on slashing penalty rates across the country and as general wage growth stagnates.
Employment and incomes are strongly correlated with education levels in a community, and there is no surprise that secondary school participation at age 16 is 17 percentage points lower in Braddon than in Wentworth, at 67 percent. This is even worse in the Burnie, Wynyard and Waratah communities, where only 57 per cent and 59 per cent of 16 year olds are in school. Of course this flows through to post-secondary education, with only one in five school leavers attending university, TAFE or other education services in northwest Tasmania while over half of those in the Waverley district of Wentworth participate in higher education. The most remote part of Braddon, the west coast, has an even worse outcome, with only one in 10 young people going on to further studies.
Labor has clear policies on TAFE, skills, higher education and needs based funding for primary and high schools, which are streets ahead of those of this government, which is only interested in cuts, cuts and more cuts.
There is no surprise that there is an enormous gap in welfare dependency between Braddon and Wentworth. Around one in three people in north-west Tasmania are receiving a mostly full-time welfare payment, compared to one in 10 people in the Prime Minister's electorate. This all leads to another clear area of inequality between Wentworth and Braddon: our residents' ability to cope with cost-of-living pressures. In Braddon, around one in five people delay a medical consultation because they cannot afford it, while in Wentworth this rate is around six per cent—and this is on current prices. I can only imagine what an additional co-payment for visiting the doctor would do to this disparity.
On rental stress: someone in Burnie or Devonport faces almost three times as much rental stress as someone in Wentworth. Rental stress is where the cost of housing is high relative to household income. So, even with the insane housing prices we see in Sydney, the massive income disparity leads to residents of the north-west of Tasmania facing three times as much rental stress as those in the Prime Minister's electorate.
I turn to health care and health outcomes. At 79 years, life expectancy in north-west Tasmania is a whopping five years less than in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, where on average people live to 84. It is even worse on Tasmania's west coast, where life expectancy is only 71 years, 13 years less than in Wentworth. Despite a lower population, public hospital admissions in Braddon are 1½ times higher than in Wentworth. This places intense pressure on our ambulances, hospitals and community health services, which is only increased by the long distances one needs to travel to get to hospital or to provide support to patients in the community. At around 30 per cent, obesity rates in north-west Tasmania are double those of Sydney's eastern suburbs, contributing to pressure on our health services and higher rates of non-communicable diseases. Finally, deaths from suicide in Braddon are almost double those in Wentworth, with an annual rate of 13 per 100,000 people taking their own lives in north-west Tasmania.
It is logical that regional communities are going to face transport and communications difficulties at higher rates than those in the big cities, but these rates are too high. Thousands more people find it harder to access services because of a lack of transport in Braddon than in Wentworth. In communications there are countless mobile blackspots, and there are thousands more homes and businesses slated for the inferior fibre-to-the-node NBN than fibre to the premises, despite the promises of the Abbott opposition in 2013 to honour the fibre-to-the-premises contracts in Tasmania.
So what can we do? First of all, we can share our stories. Next, share your ideas. We need to hear both from experts in these fields and from the community. Sometimes simple ideas for changing a process or supporting a new program are all that it takes, while other areas of inequality are much more entrenched and require detailed long-term plans.
Our first inequality forum in Braddon will be in Queenstown next Tuesday, co-hosted by me and the member for Braddon, Justine Keay. I anticipate a good discussion on issues across each of the areas that I have outlined today and of course more issues that the community raises. The west coast community has proved time and time again, including on important projects like the Abt Railway and the NBN, that, if it is unified and vocal, it will be heard by government. And, while there will always be challenges in regional inequality, if we in this place can demonstrate real action for people, we will bridge the divide. This forum will be the first in a series across Braddon, as we give as many people as possible the opportunity to participate, to provide and put forward their ideas, as we confront regional inequality head on and make life for people in regional, remote and rural Australia better.
In 1991, Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody wrote the now famous song From Little Things Big Things Grow. Apparently they were sitting around a campfire, and a few hours later they had written a six-minute song. The song tells the story of Vincent Lingiari and the Wave Hill walk-off in 1966, through to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam symbolically handing their land back eight years later, an event which became a catalyst for the Aboriginal land rights movement. What I have learned in my past six years of being involved in politics is that some of the most significant reforms can grow from what seems to be a small idea or issue. Of course, some of the most obvious injustices are not always quickly or easily fixed by legislative reform. But—to take from the words of Kelly and Carmody—gather round, people; let me tell you a story.
A week before Senate estimates last month, I was having a conversation with my staff that went like this: 'What flight are you on at the end of estimates?' 'I'm on the Thursday night flight because estimates only runs for four days this time,' was the reply. 'Are you sure?' I asked. 'Well, the sitting calendar only shows four days.' And then it dawned on us: cross-portfolio Indigenous matters, which usually occur on the Friday of the estimates week, are not included on the sitting calendar. Consideration of cross-portfolio Indigenous matters started following a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs in 2008, where it was established that it was just too difficult for senators to navigate various committees to ask questions on these matters.
Of course, estimates provides a perfect opportunity to raise the issue with the government. So, during questioning of Prime Minister and Cabinet, I asked Senator Brandis why cross-portfolio Indigenous matters were omitted from the official sitting calendar. Senator Brandis said:
I do not know the answer to that question.
Discussion ensued about who is responsible for creating the calendar. Senator Brandis ultimately said:
As to your point, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, that the cross-portfolio Indigenous questions are not shown as a specific estimates day in the calendar, I must confess I have never noticed that before, but I suspect you are right.
I queried who I should speak to about rectifying the significant omission and, in referring me to the managers of government business in the House and the Senate, Senator Brandis said:
There is certainly no reason why that Friday should not be marked in the calendar as an estimates day.
The government has since agreed to add the day to the calendar. It has therefore taken eight years for anyone to notice the omission and then have it rectified. It seems to me this omission is symbolic of the way Indigenous people are often treated by politicians and policymakers. I have only been in this place as a senator for a relatively short time, but I can already provide a number of examples where Indigenous people have been an afterthought or completely forgotten.
One of the first examples I encountered was in relation to the government's proposed childcare reforms, which were considered by a Senate committee. The government proposed to cut budget based funding, 80 per cent of which goes to early childhood education in Indigenous communities. Despite this, the government failed to consult with stakeholders such as SNAICC during the initial reference group consultation period on the design of the reforms package. When questioned about the number of Indigenous organisations involved in this consultation process, the department were unable to name a single organisation, and the response from them on this issue was quite unsatisfactory.
However, the Nick Xenophon Team was listening to SNAICC and other Indigenous stakeholders, and we managed to secure the budget based funding, as well as an additional $49 million for early childhood services in Indigenous, remote and disadvantaged communities, through negotiations with the government about the childcare reform package. But we should not have had to be the ones to do it. The cuts to these services should never have been on the table in the first place.
Another example stems from a meeting I had with a number of Victorian and South Australian traditional owners in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and, in particular, the northern basin review. They told me there had been no integration in the review of Indigenous cultural consultation. They pointed to 1½ pages, which included a large photo, in the Northern basin review report. The report's preface highlights key perspectives from stakeholders that were represented during the review, including—and I am quoting from the report here:
These are incredibly powerful words.
I was therefore quite surprised that, in this 52-page report, only 1½ pages were dedicated to describing the importance of environmental water to Aboriginal people. That section of this report states that Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations, representing 22 first nations, made contributions to the northern basin review. However, based on the 1½ pages in this report, I am still not clear on what NBAN's view on the review was, particularly the recommendations of the review. The traditional owners told me, 'We have not been asked what we want,' and they made heartbreaking comments such as, 'We have been forgotten again.'
A third example I have been involved in arose from issues in relation to the remote health workforce. Following the tragic murder of South Australian remote area nurse Gayle Woodford, the federal government commissioned the Remote health workforce safety and security report. The damning report, which was released in January 2017 by workforce representative body CRANAplus, noted:
Twenty-five percent of questionnaire participants reported that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in which they worked had no Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Health Workers. The absence of Indigenous clinical staff impacts negatively on both the cultural safety of services available to communities, and the safety of RANs and other members of the remote health workforce.
The report continued:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers identified that some hazards and risks they experienced were the same as those experienced by RANs, but many were different. If an angry or drug affected person came to the clinic intending to harm staff, everyone would be at similar risk. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health staff were more susceptible to internal family and community violence—domestic violence, community punishment, or assault by others trying to project blame onto others.
The report went on to make 31 recommendations about improving the safety and security of the remote health workforce. Yet, when I asked during Senate estimates almost two months later when we could expect a departmental response to the report, I was met with silence. It seemed the department had not turned its mind to responding. They were not sure how they would respond and said no funding was available to respond. I was told a roundtable would be held in May, although the department was unable to give me any information about the dates or the agenda.
Other Indigenous health workforce reforms are being pushed for by groups such as the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives, and their CEO, Janine Mohamed, who is a fantastic advocate. Simple requests, such as embedding cultural safety—which can also be called education about racism—into health practitioner regulation law, are falling on deaf ears. To achieve parity, the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nurses needs to dramatically increase. Providing a safe workplace is an obvious way to attract Indigenous people to the workforce. The positive outcomes that would flow from increased participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the health workforce are dramatic, and include closing the life expectancy gap within a generation.
While I was not directly involved in the human rights committee inquiry into the government's proposed changes to 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, I want to note that it is another example of the omission of Indigenous peoples from the process. None of the five witnesses called to give evidence represented an Indigenous group, and, when the Aboriginal Legal Service of the ACT and New South Wales attempted to speak, they were not allowed to do so. The government are proposing to water down race-hate laws, yet they would not hear Indigenous views on their proposal.
Eight years we waited for Indigenous cross-portfolio issues to be included in the sitting calendar. Eight years was the time Vincent Lingiari waited for a resolution. As Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody wrote in their song:
That was the story of Vincent Lingiarri
But this is the story of something much more
How power and privilege can not move a people
Who know where they stand and stand in the law
The waiting must stop. Instead of our first people being an afterthought, make them the first thought, because from little things big things grow.
I rise to talk about the powers of the Commonwealth government under section 51 of our Constitution, which relates to the defence of the nation. Over the years, leaders of both political persuasions have highlighted that this is the most important task of government—to make provision for the defence of the nation.
I would like to talk a bit today about what this government has done in this area, with the white paper of last year, the integrated investment plan and the Defence industry policy statement. Then I will talk about what changes are actually occurring now as a result, to the benefit of our Defence Force in terms of capability; and about our ability to sustain that over the life of that equipment, through the investment in defence industry. Lastly, I would like to talk about why this area of our polity should be above politics, and I will go back to some work I did in 2013 and talk about some work that I am hoping will occur in this term of parliament around planning for defence and the national interest.
The white paper of 2016 was released by the government. It set out, as most of them do, the strategic situation and the plans for the future. Alongside of that was the integrated investment plan. This has been a shift from previous years in that rather than just being a shopping list of equipment that is required, the government and Defence have taken a holistic view. Within the defence construct, when they look at capability, they do not just look at, for example, the aircraft. They look at the fact that you need pilots, technicians, runways, fuel and a doctrine and tactics to employ it. Likewise, in the procurement we should not just be funding the aircraft. We should be making provision for all of those aspects of funding over the decade, which is why the integrated investment plan looks at a whole range of areas, including infrastructure, and importantly allocates funding and time frames to that. This gives not only Treasury, in terms of the provision of funding as we move towards that two per cent, but importantly industry an idea of the areas where the government is committing funding to invest in our defence capability.
The third element of that package was the Defence industry policy statement. That is something that traditionally has been either the last or second-last chapter of the white paper. This year it was a standalone document. The reason it was a standalone document is that it makes quite a paradigm shift in how the government and Defence are engaging with industry. Much of that is premised on the work of the First Principles Review, which followed the 2012 Senate inquiry into defence procurement.
One of the changes that the First Principles Review recommended is that, just as the service chiefs are required to consider things like their personnel, individual training, organisational structure, doctrine and all of those elements of their capability, they should also consider the defence industry, or at least elements of defence industry, as one of their fundamental inputs to capability. They can, therefore, be more proactive in their management and understanding of that, so when they come to government with a cabinet submission for an acquisition there is a very deliberate understanding of the impact this will have, or the opportunities this will present, for defence industry. This will mean it is considered and, where necessary, funded as part of that decision process. That has been a paradigm shift in terms of the structure.
We have seen white papers in the past which have had fantastic vision and scope of what people aspire to, but then either the budget has not followed or, importantly, the decision cycle has been so slow that stakeholders—whether they be in Defence or in defence industry—have wondered what all the fuss was about, because they do not see tangible change.
I am very pleased to report to the Senate that, as a result of both this combination of the white paper integrated investment plan and the Defence industry policy statementwith its very clear focus combined with the focus at a cabinet level of the defence industry policy—we are seeing decisions being made in a timely manner, which is providing industry the encouragement and the confidence to invest in Australia. Already we are seeing not only the decisions made on headline programs—everyone knows about submarines and DCNS, and they are setting up their office in Australia—but other companies, such as Northrop Grumman, which is doubling the size of its workforce in Australia from 500 to around 1,000 people. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, likewise, are doubling the size of their workforce in Australia. They are building new facilities and extending existing facilities. We are seeing investment in infrastructure in Australia. In Western Australia this year we have already seen works supporting Austal, for example, who export ships. They are building patrol boats here, both for our use and the Pacific patrol boat for the region. Companies like Civmec are looking to make significant investments in infrastructure and personnel, so that we have the facilities in place to implement the government's policies. This year in South Australia plans are well underway for the future developments at Osborne. We are seeing, in a very real sense, that this policy—unlike many in the past, which have been issued with a bit of fanfare and then sit on a shelf collecting dust—is actually making a difference.
It is not just the big companies we are talking about. I went with the defence committee to Avalon earlier this year to the international air show. The overwhelming sense that I received from the players there, from small business, was that they are seeing contracts flowing from government directly, or through primes, and they have the confidence because they are being contracted now to pick up work. Part of that is the investment that the government is making in innovation and technology, so that we have the opportunity for companies here to take great ideas to develop unique Australian IP, so that we can see those exported. We are seeing that being supported by government very actively. Things like CEA who have developed their CEAFAR radar. In terms of world leading capability on our own, Anzac frigates are now being exported overseas to the US and are in contention for a Canadian contract. So some very positive things are happening on the ground, creating jobs and wealth in Australia.
There has been some controversy in recent days, particularly by members opposite who are mistakenly saying that the maritime technical college which has been announced is somehow competing with the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania. As Senator Polley said earlier today, the Australian Maritime College is a great institution. It is well regarded worldwide, and, as she said, it trains seafarers. What we are talking about in terms of a technical college to support naval shipbuilding is that the government is recognising there is a need to help people transition from other industries or move from school into training. The college will equip the workforce we need, not just in areas like fabrication, welding and other skills but also with systems. Whether that be software, electronics or the integration of systems, this college, which would be contracted this year and start operations next year, will look to engage a network of providers around the country to make sure that no matter which state you live in people will have the opportunity to engage and train to be a part of this program. The program will see the South Australian workforce alone increase from some 1,800 to nearly 5,000 in the shipbuilding industry, as we move to build not only the offshore patrol vessels, the future frigates and the future submarines but also the Pacific patrol boats and importantly other vessels for export that the government is working on.
Finally, let's look at where all this goes. What we saw in 2009 was a white paper, which—although some thought it was a little optimistic—most people supported and said, 'That is a good thing'. The decision of the government of the day then to pursue a budget surplus led to the funding not being delivered. That meant that commentators looked at it and said, 'Well, it's a great paper, but essentially defence is now'—to quote them—'an incoherent mess, approaching a train wreck of colossal proportions’, and ‘plans set out in 2009 are in disarray; investment is badly stalled, and the Defence budget is an unsustainable mess’. I was then a member of her majesty's loyal opposition and I said that it was partly the fault of the government of the day. But I would actually say it is also a fault of our political system. We have a three-year political cycle that drives decisions that are short-term in nature, as opposed to looking at the long-term investment time line that Defence has.
I wrote an article back in 2013—and ASPI did some workshops with me around how we could move towards a bipartisan approach to planning for defence—I cited the Danish example. I am hoping that in this term of parliament we will see more work in that area, so that defence can truly be above politics as one of the most important and foremost tasks of any government.
I want to take this opportunity in the last sitting week before the budget is due to update the Senate on what we have seen from this government in Queensland, particularly regional Queensland, over recent budgets, and the impact that that has had on local communities. There is no doubt that what we are seeing from this government is a divided government, a weak leader and, increasingly, a narrow agenda. You only have to look at the subjects that are up for debate this week: a weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act, a refusal so far to have a vote to protect penalty rates, and a government that is champing at the bit to cut the pay and conditions of those who can least afford it. We also see them pursuing an agenda of tax cuts for big multinational companies. That is not going to help those people in regional Queensland who are really struggling.
I always like to inject some facts into the debate, and I think this frames and underscores the challenge that we have in regional Queensland. The unemployment rate in Townsville is over 10 per cent. The unemployment rate in Cairns is almost 10 per cent. The youth unemployment rates in both Townsville and Cairns are above 20 per cent. As a Queensland senator, I am very concerned that the next generation of people coming through are unable to find employment. You would think the government would have focused on these issues, but, sadly, what we see from the other side is plenty of rhetoric but very little action. It is a really sad indictment on the government that they have failed to make any inroads in this regard in regional Queensland. I think when you hear some of the answers from those opposite in question time, particularly answers from Senator Nash and Senator Canavan—they often get very loud; they often start shouting—and when you look at their record it is really poor.
The best example is in regard to jobs packages and promises that were made during the last election campaign. Senator Nash toured throughout Queensland. She visited Cairns, the Bowen Basin and the Wide Bay area, promising millions of dollars for jobs packages in those areas. How much has been spent? Not one cent. Guidelines have not even been implemented. So, in an area where you have high unemployment, they come through before an election, making promises, but they have delivered nothing—absolutely nothing. So why don't you start getting some runs on the board and actually delivering on your promises in regional Queensland?
The other great hoax from those opposite—and Senator Canavan in particular—has been the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. If you listen to some of his rhetoric again, you will hear him talk about all sorts of things that they are going to do through NAIF. Again, look at the record. How much has been spent? How many projects have been supported? Not one project has been supported through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. When you look at the record of this government and the impact that that has had on regional Queensland, you will see that they have done absolutely nothing. Is it any wonder that regional Queenslanders, like everyone else in Australia, are losing faith in this government when they look at their record over the last 18 months in this area.
This is not even to mention what they have done with rural and regional councils. There are 34 of them that still have outstanding issues with this government in relation to the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Again, this is something where they are neglecting rural and regional councils. So it is something that is an absolute failure of this government that we will absolutely hold them to account on. As we look forward to this budget what can we expect? If you are in regional Queensland, very little—based on previous records. So the jobs packages that they went around promising before the election—nothing has happened with them. With the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—there is nothing that they can point to that they have achieved in that regard.
The most recent example of the debacle of this government is in relation to the regional ministerial task force. It was announced by Senator Nash, I believe, and there was not one Queenslander on it. They like to come in here and champion their efforts in regard to regional Queensland, but not one senator from Queensland was put on that task force. I quote from the Courier Mail, 15 March:
When the Prime Minister’s office was questioned, the query was flicked to Regional Development Minister Fiona Nash, who said: “Every Queenslander knows they have a champion in Barnaby Joyce, who was Senator for Queensland for almost a decade.
We know Barnaby sold out on Queensland a long time ago. It then goes on to say that Senator Canavan was appointed to the committee but he was not on the original appointment list. I think that goes to show you the neglect they have shown in regional Queensland. They come in here and talk a big game, but when you look at their actions there is a real failure to do anything for regional Queensland.
Again, we hear regularly from Senator Canavan in relation to employment issues. Let's have a look at their record. Since they were elected, there are 18,000 fewer people employed in mining in Queensland than there were in 2015. There are 5,400 fewer people employed in construction than there were in 2014. And there are 7,300 fewer people in Queensland employed in manufacturing. That is their record. It is disgraceful and we will hold them to account. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Firstly, I would like to say to Queenslanders that the thoughts of all Labor senators and, I am sure, the thoughts of all senators, are with the people affected by Tropical Cyclone Debbie. We hope everyone stays safe, and we recognise the amazing work of emergency services personnel and those assisting communities on the ground. What steps has the government taken to ensure the resources of the Commonwealth are available to respond immediately to Queenslanders impacted by Tropical Cyclone Debbie?
Thank you very much indeed for that very helpful question, Senator Chisholm, and I of course associate myself and all government senators with the sentiments you have expressed.
I can tell you, as the Minister for Defence outlined yesterday, that the ADF is providing considerable support for the communities affected. The Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland have announced that Australian Army Brigadier Christopher Field will coordinate Queensland's recovery efforts. A short while ago, I spoke with Mark Crosweller, the Director-General of Emergency Management Australia, who advised me that Defence have already begun aerial surveillance of the damage in order to try to establish the extent of the damage—in particular, the extent of damage to dwellings.
I can also advise the Senate that, under the jointly funded Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, assistance has already been activated in response to Tropical Cyclone Debbie for counter-disaster operations and extraordinary costs for the eight local government areas of Burdekin, Charters Towers, Isaac, Hinchinbrook, Mackay, Palm Island, Townsville and Whitsunday.
The Commonwealth will continue to carefully monitor the impacts of the events and will continue to remain, as we have been, in close communication with the Queensland government. We stand ready to assist the recovery in disaster affected communities in any way that the Commonwealth's resources may be of assistance. People can expect further information in relation to Commonwealth assistance in coming days.
Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.
How is the government assisting in the assessment of damage in the aftermath of Cyclone Debbie?
As I said to you, the ADF has already put into the air an aerial surveillance team, which is assisting the Queensland government's rapid damage assessment team. I also want to acknowledge the assistance provided by New South Wales and the ACT in that particular part of the exercise.
I might take the opportunity to give you a report on what Mr Crosweller has just told me as to the extent of the damage. At the moment, we know that there are 68,000 homes without power in the area in and around the impact zone. The impact zone is defined as Airlie Beach, Proserpine, Bowen and adjacent areas. I can tell you, Senator Chisholm, that— (Time expired)
Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question.
What disaster recovery funding will be made available to the Queensland government, local government, and those impacted to assist in the recovery effort?
As I said in answer to your previous question, that will be under the NDRRA. The appropriate declarations have been made, and are being made, by my colleague the Minister for Justice, the Hon. Michael Keenan, who has responsibility for emergency management.
I am advised by Mr Crosweller that there are 6,774 buildings in the impact zone—that does not include Mackay; it is the immediate impact zone—of which we judge that 2,885 were built before 1980. That was when the current building code came into operation, which required that all buildings be built to a strength to withstand a category 4 cyclone, which this cyclone was. The assessment is ongoing but we are apprehensive that among those 2,885 buildings there will be a considerable number damaged. (Time expired)
I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from New Zealand, representing the Justice and Electoral Committee, led by Ms Sarah Dowie MP. We welcome them all to Australia and, in particular, the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Delegates were seated accordingly.
My question is for the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Can the minister update the Senate on the cost that South Australians are facing to maintain their energy security?
I thank Senator Fawcett for his question and for his interest in this important area. Sadly, our home state of South Australia faces the least reliable, highest cost electricity in the country. Of course, we have learnt over recent weeks that those costs are only getting greater. Premier Jay Weatherill in South Australia, on 13 March, made what amounts to a $550 million admission of failure in terms of energy management in South Australia. That $550 million will be paid for by every woman, man and child across the state of South Australia. It will be paid for by every business in terms of increased costs of operation.
The need for the South Australian government to step in, as they now say they need to do, and build a new gas fired power station in South Australia is a clear admission from the South Australian government that they need more base-load power in SA and that they have become too reliant on intermittent sources of energy. It is a clear admission that the big experiment that Jay Weatherill said he was undertaking in terms of reliance on renewable energy has been a massive failure that is coming at a massive cost to the people and businesses of South Australia.
It should serve as a clear warning to the people of Queensland and their state government, with their 50 per cent target, and to the people of Victoria and their state government, with their 40 per cent target, that they should not rush to move to such intermittent sources without clear plans around how they maintain security through base load or improved storage capacity. Going it alone is what got South Australia into this mess and, sadly, half of the solution to get out appears to be going it alone again in terms of their plans to unilaterally rewrite the rules of the National Electricity Market, creating further risk of higher prices and higher costs that can be only to the detriment of South Australian households and businesses. (Time expired)
Senator Fawcett, supplementary question.
Could the minister advise whether the South Australian government had any alternatives?
It seems today that it is very clear that the South Australian government did have alternatives. In fact, the offer was made to the South Australian government to keep the 546-megawatt Northern Power Station open for $25 million. How much is the South Australian government now going to spend on getting itself out of the mess? $550 million. So they could have invested $25 million and avoided the problems that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in loss to industry but instead they are now going to spend $550 million—22 times more than it would have cost to avoid the problem altogether. This is the type of recklessness that, sadly, we have come to expect all too often from the Labor Party that South Australia has suffered under and that South Australian businesses, communities and homes are living under the cost of today.
Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate what lessons Australia can learn from the consequences of decisions of the South Australian government?
(—) (): There is not just a real lesson for states like Queensland and Victoria, as I referenced before, but a big lesson for those opposite in the Labor Party and for Mr Shorten from the costs and the failures that we have seen in South Australia. That of course is that they need to abandon their reckless policy of a 50 per cent renewable energy target that has no modelling behind it, no analysis of how they would meet it, no analysis of the cost of doing so and certainly no concept whatsoever of what it would mean to reliability across the National Energy Market, what it would mean to affordability for Australian households and what it would mean in terms of the capacity of the market to provide reliable, affordable energy to Australian businesses that rely upon such energy for jobs in the future. Our government is committed to meeting our emissions reductions targets, but it will not be doing so at the expense of affordability and it will not be doing so at the expense of reliability— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. In its report into search warrants tabled yesterday in the Senate the Privileges Committee found that warrants executed during the election campaign against the opposition, who had been exposing cost blowouts, delays and mismanagement of the NBN under the Turnbull government, amounted to 'improper interference'. What was Prime Minister Turnbull so desperate to hide that the NBN Co improperly interfered with the parliament?
That is an extraordinary allegation to make, Senator Carr, and I think you ought to reflect very carefully on whether you want your name to be associated with such an extraordinary allegation against the integrity of two national institutions: NBN Co, which is an independent statutory corporation, and the Australian Federal Police. That is a disgraceful thing for you to allege. I know that the Australian Federal Police issued a statement—
Mr President, I have a point of order on direct relevance. At no point in the question did Senator Carr refer to the Australian Federal Police.
Thank you, Senator Wong. Attorney-General, you have the call.
The innuendo was absolutely manifest. Senator Carr, any suggestion of any irregularity and impropriety against either NBN Co or the Australian Federal Police by you, as you make, is a disgrace. It is an independent statutory corporation and an independent policing agency. The AFP issued this statement yesterday, which I will read onto the record:
The Australian Federal Police is aware of the Senate Privileges Committee's 164th report tabled on 28 March 2017. The AFP will now consider the report's findings. It would not be appropriate to provide any further comment at this time.
Senator Carr, a supplementary question.
Minister, will the Prime Minister ensure that the information discovered as a result of the improper interference was not and will not be used to target staff of NBN Co?
Senator Carr, you should be aware after all the long years you have spent as a member of parliament that the Prime Minister has absolutely no role whatsoever in the issuance of search warrants—none whatsoever.
Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.
Minister, NBN Co has already announced its intention to continue its witch-hunt, despite the findings of the Privileges Committee. What action will the government take to ensure that NBN Co respects the rules and privileges of this parliament?
NBN Co is an independent statutory agency.
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. The secretariat of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples is based in Redfern, Sydney, in a building leased to it by the ILC. On 20 March, National Congress were advised by the ILC that they need to vacate the Redfern headquarters by 30 April. The new tenant is unable to offer National Congress any space and congress risks having nowhere to go. Given that National Congress have been a long-term tenant and have previously submitted a divestment application for the floor of the building they occupy, does the minister know why they were not considered for tenancy and, if he knows, could he explain why?
Just before I walked into question time, I was able to ask the co-chair, Jackie Huggins, if she was still in fact homeless. She was be able to tell me: 'No, Senator. Thank you so much for your assistance. We will be housed where we are currently housed in Redfern.'
Senator Siewert, a supplementary question.
Thank you. That is indeed good news and very recent news. Could you please inform the Senate as to what conditions will be applied to that tenancy, if they are being offered a lease, and at what cost?
) ( ): I understand those details are currently being worked out, Senator. What I will do and to the best I can inside the parameters of commercial-in-confidence—and I do not think there should be many—is provide the Senate with those when they come to bear.
Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question.
Could I confirm that they will in fact be in exactly the same place and if they are being offered the new rate? Building on that commercial-in-confidence comment that you made, I understand the new tenant who was to replace them was being offered a contract of $50,000 a year, whereas congress was paying $24,000 a month.
) ( ): As I said, to my knowledge I can confirm that they will be staying. It is very recent, as you understand. In terms of the costings, again, I will report both to you immediately and to the Senate in the appropriate period of time, but my understanding is that they are very satisfied with the outcome of those negotiations with the tenant.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Over recent months, I have met with businesses throughout regional Victoria about increasing their growth opportunities. Some of their key inhibitors which they have told me about have been their ability to access a reliable and affordable energy supply. Some have told me about price hikes of up to 30 per cent in their power bills over the last year. Other businesses have spoken about how much it costs their operating bottom line every time they have to switch from one supplier to another—tens of thousands of dollars. All of this affects their ability to grow and develop right throughout regional Victoria and, more importantly, it affects their ability to employ more people across regional Victoria. Could the minister update the Senate on recent developments to improve access to affordable and reliable energy sources?
I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and her ongoing diligent and hard work for the people of regional Victoria. I am delighted to remind the Senate that it was only a fortnight ago that the Prime Minister announced that the Turnbull-Joyce government will start work on a $2 billion electricity game changer—the plan for Snowy Mountains 2.0. The unprecedented expansion will help make renewables reliable, filling in holes caused by intermittent supply and generator outages. It will enable greater energy efficiency and help stabilise electricity supply into the future. This project could boost electricity production capacity by up to 2,000 megawatts, enough to power an additional 500,000 homes—an additional 50 per cent of its current capacity.
The proposal builds on the original Snowy Mountains Scheme completed in 1974, which was a visionary nation-building project, which people across this country understand. In one hour, it could produce 20 times the 100-megawatt hours expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian government. It will deliver it constantly—I say 'constantly'—for almost a week. The coalition will ensure that the feasibility study into this historic expansion considers any potential impacts on rural communities and irrigators. The study is expected to be completed by the end of this year and, as somebody living in a regional community and very focused on water, I know that will be welcomed across those areas of irrigation. In terms of those water users, the farmers and irrigators, I am very pleased to advise that Snowy Hydro has indicated that it will not be requesting changes to its water licence as part of its proposal, so there should not be any impact on water users downstream.
Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.
Can the minister outline to the Senate the substantial benefits that an expanded Snowy Hydro scheme will deliver to households and businesses, particularly regional households and businesses?
Supercharging the Snowy Hydro project will mean that households and businesses, including many in regional Victoria and New South Wales, will be able to better access affordable and reliable electricity, which is what they are crying out for. The agriculture and food manufacturing sectors will benefit greatly from the cheaper and more secure power that pumped hydro can deliver. Businesses large and small will be better placed to invest with confidence—and we know how important that is—hire more staff with confidence and operate with more confidence. The construction of this project, which will be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, will create thousands of construction and engineering jobs. The expansion will see communities benefit beyond New South Wales and Victoria. While currently the Snowy Hydro already backups energy to New South Wales and Victoria, once expanded Snowy Hydro 2.0 will also be capable of supplying South Australia, if needed.
Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any—
Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
Order, Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Whish-Wilson!
Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to supply an affordable and reliable energy supply?
Indeed, I am. This coalition has a very clear vision and plan to secure and protect Australia's energy future. What are those opposite doing with their alternative plans? Previously, they had offered us a carbon tax. Who could forget their carbon tax increasing the price of power—their job-destroying, economy-wrecking carbon tax? What do they offer now? They offer a 50 per cent renewable energy target—an offer that puts at risk energy security, energy supply and energy affordability. And how much power, colleagues, did we see in the Labor state of South Australia under the blackout? You know the word: zero; zero power in South Australia. Those opposite have an absolute failed policy when it comes to energy: a 50 per cent RET. It is this side of the chamber that is going to provide affordable, reliable energy in the future. (Time expired)
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Ryan. 1800RESPECT is the National Sexual Assault and Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, RDVSA, is a national specialist not-for-profit service for women, men and children who experience sexual assault and family violence. RDVSA was funded to provide the 1800RESPECT line trauma-counselling service since the line's inception, in 2010, until last year, when the federal government redirected funding to a for-profit company.
A triage service is now in place, which sees callers directed to Medibank Health Solutions first and then to a trauma counsellor at RDVSA, requiring the victim to retell their story. MHS has reportedly predicted a doubling of profits from such call services and the government has increased funding to MHS rather than fund direct services, such as counsellors. Why is the government allowing a company to profit from a service provided to victims of rape and domestic violence?
I thank Senator Kakoschke-Moore for the question. The government is committed to ensuring that women experiencing, or at risk of, domestic or family violence or sexual assault are able to access the support they need, when they need it, through 1800RESPECT. Telephone and online counselling are key elements of the service; however, the service is much wider. It also provides support to frontline workers through the digital Frontline Workers Toolkit and regular web facilities.
The government is disappointed—and I am not sure if you are referring to the campaign of the ASU, Senator Kakoschke-Moore; you did not in your question but my brief tends to allude to this—with the campaign launched by the ASU criticising the new first response triage model and the tender for the trauma specialist counselling service component. With respect to the provider and the issue of profit or the contract, I will come back to the chamber with further information.
Senator Kakoschke-Moore, a supplementary question.
Victims of rape and domestic violence need support from specialist counsellors immediately, and having to retell their story inflicts more trauma on the victim. Do you concede that requiring a victim of rape and domestic violence to first speak to an operator, who could be answering calls from their own home, and then be directed to a specialist rape and domestic violence trauma counsellor causes more harm?
These are, obviously, very technical issues and I am not going to pretend to be someone who is qualified in these particular areas.
Senator Dastyari interjecting—
Senator Dastyari, I will take your interjection. I am trying to take a very serious issue and treat it with the respect it deserves, but you can be a fool and interject if you want to continue your behaviour. On the issue, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, in 2015-16 I will note the average wait time for the 1800RESPECT services was 10.3 minutes. Under the new model the current average wait time is 45 seconds. I think that is an important difference because it can allow people to access treatment more quickly or access services, I should say, more quickly.
Senator Kakoschke-Moore, with a final supplementary question.
Will the government review the MHS triage service and will RDVSA continue to receive funding from the federal government so that this vital service can continue beyond July 2017?
MHS uses qualified professional and experienced counsellors who provide trauma-informed care. This means a call is answered by a qualified counsellor with a three-year tertiary qualification in a related field and two years full-time counselling experience—
Senator Wong interjecting—
I am continuing, Senator Wong, to provide information from the previous question, as is occasionally done in this chamber. In terms of the specific question you asked, about the contract, I will take advice from the minister and come back to you.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister inform the Senate of the benefits of the Turnbull government's Youth Jobs PaTH Prepare Trial Hire program and how does this program seek to expand successful initiatives that have supported voluntary work experience?
Groundhog day on that side!
I thank Senator Duniam for the question and, yes, Senator Bilyk, it was yesterday's question. The reason that we have again brought up the topic today is that this government is absolutely committed to doing everything that we can to get our youth who are currently on welfare out of that system and into a job. We on this side of the—it is in our DNA. We fundamentally believe that the best form of welfare is a job.
I can tell you what's in your DNA!
I can assure you, Senator Bilyk, through you, Mr President, we make no apologies for senators on this side of the chamber showing an interest in what government is doing to implement good policy to get our youth the training they need, to get them that foot in the door and, ultimately, to ensure that they get into sustainable employment.
That is why in April our $763 million investment in our Youth Jobs PaTH does commence. As we have said, this is all about getting our youth ready, getting them the skills that they need, giving them a go, getting them that foot in the door. We often talk to our youth, and what do we hear from them? They would love to have the opportunity to undertake some work experience or to get a job, but employers will not take them on—because they do not have that experience. Ultimately, we need to get them a job.
Of course, one of the things we are focused on is young Australians who are caught up in that cycle of intergenerational unemployment and welfare dependency. They need the government to work with employers and make an investment in them. Mr President, I am disappointed that those on the other side continue to oppose getting our youth off welfare and into a job. Andrew Leigh, last year, a member in the other place, supported the program until the ACTU said, 'You can no longer support the program.' And Labor, unfortunately, changed their tune. (Time expired)
Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for the answer. Can the minister outline the benefits of giving young people experience in the workplace?
I can tell this chamber that it would appear that every single person in this chamber is committed to giving interns a go—unless, of course, it is employers and youth on welfare. Let's go through the list, in terms of the senators on the other side.
Senator Gallagher, you have been in this place for just two years, yet you have already had five interns through your office. Senator Brown, the good news is that you have apparently had three. And it does not stop there. Senator Collins, you understand the benefits of giving people a go. You have had three in your office. Senator Marshall, you do not get away from this. Those on the other side understand the benefits of giving people a go in their offices. And Senator Bilyk—I have not forgotten you—you have had two. Senator Dodson, you have been here for less than one year and you have already had two interns. I congratulate those on the other side. If only they could share what they are allowed with employers! (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! I remind senators that they should not direct their comments directly across the chamber to senators rather than to the chair. Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any threats to giving young Australians a go in the workplace?
(—) (): In response to all the interjections, I have to say that I actually applaud you for having interns in your office. The issue I have is with your hypocrisy. It is okay for those on the other side to have interns through their office, for whatever program they may take them through. But when it comes to government policy to give our youth, who are entrenched in welfare, half a chance to get their foot in the door, why is it that that same opportunity is denied by those on the other side? You love interns—except when it comes to employers having the opportunity to give our youth a go. Of course, it does not stop with Labor. Yesterday we talked about Senator Di Natale and the intern position that he advertised—'no financial remuneration is available and no employment positions are on offer'. Unlike the Greens, the PaTH program does offer employment and financial remuneration. It is a shame you will not support it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Senator Cash. Since 2007, net migration to Australia compromised over 60 per cent of Australia's total population growth. Governments have argued that increasing GDP is a welcome benefit of such migration. However, whilst GDP has risen steadily, per capita measures of income have recently declined. Given the significant negative effect of the current migration program on per capita income, how can the current levels of net migration be justified? What action is the government taking to ensure that the standard of living for the majority of Australians is not threatened?
I thank Senator Bernardi for the question and for the small amount of notice he was able to give the minister's office.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I did say 'small' amount of notice. It is a very important question. Our migration programs should serve all of our communities. I would hope that everybody in this chamber would agree that Australia is a stand-out when it comes to being one of the most successful migration nations globally. A well-managed migration program is, without a doubt, fundamental to Australia's future prosperity. Senator Bernardi, I agree that we need to ensure that the benefits of our migration program flow to all members of our community.
In responding to the specific question that you raised on migration's impact on per capita income, I draw your attention to a recent work of the Productivity Commission that looked into this very matter. The Productivity Commission undertook a review of Australia's migration intake last year. In its report, tabled on 12 September 2016, the Productivity Commission noted that there are indeed a number of important benefits of migration. For example:
By increasing the proportion of people in the workforce, immigration can provide a demographic dividend to the Australian economy and reduce the impacts of population ageing.
Moreover, the Productivity Commission found that by sustaining migration at 'this long-term average rate, and with the current age profile of the migrant intake, gross domestic product (GDP) per person is projected to increase by some seven per cent relative to a zero net overseas migration case by 2060'.
Again, I emphasise that the benefits of migration to the Australian community, including through increased incomes on a per capita basis, can only be done(Time expired)
Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question.
High net migration has also made a significant contribution to the fact that public investment on infrastructure per capita fell throughout the period 2010 to 2015. In a time of government deficits over a period of many years and a need to review government spending measures carefully, how does the government intend to maintain public investment to keep pace with Australia's excessive migration intake without raising taxes or increasing the national debt?
(—) (): I thank Senator Bernardi for the supplementary question. When Labor was last in government they increased the migration program to record levels through, in particular, losing control of our borders—unfortunately—which saw an additional 50,000 people come to the country. But one of the issues with the Labor Party in government at that time was that they did not have adequate investment in infrastructure to support our growing cities. Whilst on one hand they had tens of thousands of additional foreign workers coming into the country, they were not making an adequate investment in infrastructure. You would also know that, unlike Labor, those of us on this side of the chamber are part of a government that is investing in Australia's infrastructure needs. As part of our Economic Action Strategy we have made a $50 billion investment in current and future infrastructure. (Time expired)
Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question.
I thank the minister for the answer, and in future I will give you extra notice so that you may get a better brief in the hope of having a response appropriate to the question. Australia's excessively high levels of net migration have contributed to increased demand for housing and have placed enormous pressure on the property market in some Australian capital cities, with the ratio of house prices to household income increasing since late 2012 to historically record levels. How does the government intend to tackle the challenge of housing prices, and that includes through wage rises? (Time expired)
Again I thank Senator Bernardi for the supplementary question. In terms of what you have stated on the impact of high levels of net migration and increased demand for housing et cetera, the government does not agree that this is just all about migration. There are, of course, a number of domestic policy settings which are more significant than migration levels, and you would be aware that there are many factors that influence demand for housing and, in turn, housing prices. As I think everybody in this chamber would recognise, it is a complex equation, and it would not be correct to say that immigration is the determining factor in the question. Supply of housing is obviously a key factor when you are talking about domestic policy settings, and this is influenced by a number of things, some of which the Commonwealth government can control but certainly many others of which are in the purview of the states. Planning regulations and supply of new housing stock are far more significant than immigration in determining supply of housing. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. On 17 March, when asked by Neil Mitchell of 3AW, 'Do you support the cut to Sunday penalty rates or not?' the Prime Minister responded, 'Well, we do support it, Neil, and I've been very clear about that.' Will the minister finally concede the Prime Minister supports a cut to penalty rates?
Senator Cameron, I have to point out to you that the Fair Work Commission's decision or award was delivered on 23 February. So, when the Prime Minister was asked on 17 March whether he supported a decision of the Fair Work Commission, of course he did, as you ought to have done, Senator, and as every member of this parliament ought to support the decisions of an independent umpire—established, by the way, as I have pointed out ad nauseam this week, by your side of politics to be an independent arbiter. I might say that Mr Shorten, in advance of the decision of the Fair Work Commission—
Order! Pause the clock. Senator Cameron on a point of order.
Thank you, Mr President—on relevance. This did not ask whether the Prime Minister supported the decision; it was whether the Prime Minister supported cuts to penalty rates, as he conceded on 17 March.
Senator Cameron, you did ask the Attorney-General whether he would finally concede the point, and the answer that the Attorney-General has been giving is indicating he is not conceding the point that you have asked. The Attorney-General is directly relevant.
The Prime Minister said what he said, and the point I am making through you, Mr President, to Senator Cameron is that what the Prime Minister was saying was that he was supporting a decision made some four weeks earlier by the Fair Work Commission, as ought all members of parliament. People can have their views about whether they would have wished the decision to be otherwise than it was, but what no member of parliament has the option to do is to say, 'We refuse to accept or to support the decision of an independent umpire.' It is particularly implausible and unimpressive coming from the lips of Labor senators who actually established this body for the very purpose of being an independent umpire. If you establish a body—an arbitral tribunal—to be an independent umpire, you are bound to accept its decisions, as the Prime Minister indicated, in the interview which you have referenced, that he did.
Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
In addition to the cut to penalty rates, the Australian Retailers Association is now pushing for a below-inflation minimum wage rise. Does the Prime Minister also support a pay cut in real terms for those on the minimum wage?
The Fair Work Commission made it perfectly clear that its decision only applies to the retail and hospitality industries. So far as I am aware, there are no proceedings currently before the Fair Work Commission of the kind that you have suggested. I will tell you what the Fair Work Commission had to say when it gave its award in relation to hospitality and retail workers:
Given the distinguishing characteristics of the hospitality and retail sectors—
Order! Pause the clock. Senator Cameron, a point of order.
Yes, again on relevance. The question was in response to the Australian Retailers Association publicly pushing for a below-inflation minimum wage rise. I have simply asked: does the Prime Minister also support a pay cut in real terms for those on the minimum wage? The minister has not gone to that question.
I have to interpret it by inference there that the minister is supposed to be rejecting the fact that the Fair Work Commission will be looking at this issue. So, by definition, the minister is rejecting the question that you have asked in relation to the Prime Minister's support for that. That is the only way I can interpret that.
Let me start again. The commission said:
Given the distinguishing characteristics of the Hospitality and Retail sectors, the decisions we have made in respect of the Hospitality and Retail Awards provide no warrant for the variation of penalty rates in other modern awards.
What you are trying to do, Senator Cameron, is create fear and uncertainty where there is none. (Time expired)
Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
With the Prime Minister supporting pay cuts while wage growth is at its lowest level since the ABS first published the Wage Price Index in 1998, isn't it clear that working and middle-class Australians will always lose out under the Turnbull government?
Senator Cameron, what an ardent class warrior you are.
Thank you.
In fact, at the moment, Senator Cameron, I can tell you that the minimum wage of $672.70 per week represents an increase in the minimum wage, year on year, of 2.4 per cent. The inflation rate in the calendar year 2016 was 1.0 per cent, so there has been growth in real terms in the minimum wage over the last year. You asked me about the Prime Minister.
They've never had it so good! Luxury!
Senator Cameron, you have asked your question.
I will tell you, Senator Cameron, the Prime Minister, like every member of the government, will support, respect and accept the decisions of an independent umpire, whatever those decisions are, and so should you.
As a senator for the great state of Western Australia, my question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Can the minister please update the Senate on the relative strength of Australia's resource sector?
I thank Senator Reynolds for her question and do recognise the great contribution that Western Australia makes to this nation and her passion and support for the strength of the mining sector within Western Australia.
Yesterday, the Minerals Councils of Australia released a Deloitte report on the size of the mining sector in this country. Typically we quote the size of the mining sector in terms of how many people are directly employed at a mine or resource business, but there is, of course, also a business ecosystem surrounding the mining sector—the mining equipment and technology services sector—which does not always get captured in the results. But Deloitte has done some groundbreaking work using RBA methodology on input-output tables to show that in fact 1.1 million Australians owe their employment to the mining sector, and that accounts for about one in 10 jobs in Australia resulting from the mining sector itself. That shows that overall the mining sector accounts for about 15 per cent of GDP in Australia as well. It is a big, big contributor to our nation's wealth and employment, and so many Australians know and understand that their wealth comes from this sector.
It is even more important in some individual regional areas. As I know Senator Reynolds would know, 88 per cent of the economy in the Pilbara, according to this report, is based on the wealth from our resources sector. In my part of the world, the Balonne-Surat area where I live, 63 per cent of our economy relies on the mining sector as well, and in the Hunter region 34 per cent relies on the mining sector. I would imagine if Deloitte had done this work 100 or so years ago the Hunter proportion would have been even higher. The mining sector is often the pioneer in terms of our economic development. It often goes to parts of our country that are not developed, that do not have industry, develops those, and then more diverse businesses come in after that like they have in the Hunter region. Our mining sector remains strong. It is an incredibly strong contributor to our nation. (Time expired)
Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that answer. In light of his answer, can he also outline what challenges are now facing the resources sector, especially in relation to affordable energy and reliable energy sources?
The report also does point out that our mining sector is a large user of energy and relies on affordable energy supplies to continue. We often think of our mining sector in terms of the export revenues it provides, and we export, say, 90 per cent of our coal at the moment, but, of course, that 10 per cent we keep here helps keeps the lights on, helps keep affordable power for businesses around our country, and we should recognise the importance of that as well. Those states in our nation that turn their back on resources like coal pay the consequences of doing so. Because South Australia decided not to have black rocks, they got blackouts. Those blackouts have cost the South Australian economy $367 million. We learnt today that they could have saved all this if they had spent $25 million to keep the lights on and keep the coal-fired power stations going, but that is what you get with a Labor government. You get the lights going out and you get the budgets blowing out.
Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister also advise the Senate of alternative policies that are putting at risk the future not only of our thriving resources sector but also of our manufacturing sector?
According to some in this place, the South Australian policies have been so successful, they have worked so well, that the Labor-Greens alliance in this place wants to bring them to Canberra as well. Let's bring what Adelaide has done, let's shut all our coal-fired power stations down, let's have a 50 per cent renewable energy target. That is what the Labor and Greens parties want to bring federally as well. They want to shut all those coal-fired power stations down, and that would put at risk all of our energy security around this country and put jobs at risk too. But, as I suggested the other day, there is hope, because even one in six Greens voters support the Australian government funding a coal-fired power station.
Which one?
There are 10 Greens senators, Senator Abetz, so at least one of them, by the law of averages—maybe two—supports a coal-fired power station. I did identify Senator Rhiannon the other day, but I think I have found her partner, because Bob Brown also supports coal-fired power. Bob Brown said in the 1980s that coal was the best option, so there is still hope yet for the Greens in this country. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. On 1 July 2017 the Attorney-General's 30 per cent cuts to community legal services will come into effect. Does the Prime Minister support the cuts, which will see the Castan legal centre—and I know you know that centre very well, Senator Brandis—have to close its child support unit?
I know you would not deliberately mislead the Senate, Senator Moore, but I assume you are referring to the Dreyfus cuts, which were announced in the 2013 budget.
Rubbish.
Order on my left.
In the 2013 budget, as a result of a decision made by—
How long have you been in government for?
Order on my left. A question has been asked. The Attorney-General has the—
What have you been doing as Attorney for four years?
Order! The Attorney-General needs to be heard in silence.
I assume you are referring to the cuts decided upon by Mr Dreyfus when he was Attorney-General in the 2013 budget, which were engineered to expire on 30 June 2017. This is not a forward estimates estimate; this was a terminating program designed to finish on 30 June 2017. So, whatever reductions there may be on 30 June 2017 are in large part due to decisions made by your government, a government of which you were a member, which were designed to terminate then.
Senator Moore, a supplementary question.
The Northern Rivers Community Legal Centre outreach service in the Tweed region is facing closure as a result of these cuts, which are happening under your watch, Attorney-General. What advice does the Prime Minister have for Tweed residents unable to find legal assistance?
My advice to those people is to speak to Mr Dreyfus and inquire of him why, when he established a program, he engineered it to terminate four years later. If he was of the view that there was a need for continuing funding, he could have asked for it, but he did not. He engineered a program beyond the life of the government of which he was a member to terminate at 30 June 2017. I know that community legal centres are suffering as a result of the Dreyfus funding cliff, and they ought to take the matter up with the person who engineered that funding cliff.
Senator Moore, a final supplementary question.
Attorney, as a result of the cuts, the Hobart Women's Legal Service will see a $200,000 reduction in funding from the Commonwealth. Will the Prime Minister, or indeed the Attorney-General, intervene and reverse these cuts to ensure women in Hobart get access to the assistance they need? And maybe get them to have a chat to you, Attorney.
Senator Moore, I will be pointing out to them that the cuts that they are suffering are as a result of decisions made by Mr Dreyfus. Nevertheless, I will also be pointing out to them that under this government, under the national partnership agreement which commenced on 1 July 2015—
Senator Moore on a point of order.
In direct relevance to the specific question. I understand the Attorney is giving background, but the particular question was: will the Prime Minister intervene? Knowing the background—intervene.
Thank you, Senator Moore. I will remind the Attorney-General of the question.
Senator, what I am telling you is what arrangements this government has already made to provide for the needs of the kind you have identified. Under the national partnership agreement negotiated by this government, commencing on 1 July 2015 the Commonwealth is providing $1.6 billion to community legal centres, legal aid commissions and Indigenous legal assistance providers, and as well, under the packages announced for women's safety by my colleague Michaelia Cash, we are increasing that by another $16.5 million. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts, Senator Fifield. Can the minister apprise the Senate of the arts funding changes that were announced last week?
I thank Senator Hume for the question. I did last week announce a further rebalancing of funds within my portfolio from my department to the Australia Council.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I hear those opposite saying congratulations to me, and I am happy to accept that. In terms of the detail, approximately $61 million in uncommitted funding over four years will be transferred. This includes the $32 million transferred to the Australia Council that I announced in late 2015. These new funding arrangements will see a total of $80.2 million over four years in both committed and uncommitted funding transferred to the Australia Council from 2017-18. I should recap briefly on what the Catalyst program has achieved. It has provided $35 million to 189 projects across the arts and culture sector, and 159 of those were to small and medium organisations. A total of 1,086 individual activities were undertaken, and 833 of these were across the nation, including 436 activities in regional and remote Australia, and Catalyst has funded an incredibly broad range of activities. While recognising the broad range of good projects that Catalyst has supported across the nation, the government has listened to and responded to feedback from the sector, from the Australia Council, and, as a result, as I have indicated, is undertaking a further rebalancing of funds within the portfolio. But I should make clear that we will be retaining $2 million per year in the portfolio as an alternative source for these organisations. (Time expired)
Could the minister explain what other arrangements were included in the policy announced on 18 March?
As I was just saying, the department will retain $2 million a year for organisations that might not ordinarily be eligible for Australia Council funding, and our thinking at this stage is that that might particularly include galleries, libraries, archives, the museum sector, and some regional and community organisations. So that is something that we are continuing to work on. The department will also continue to administer the Visions of Australia and the Festivals Australia initiatives that were transferred from the Australia Council in the 2015-16 budget, and I should indicate that the Australia Council fully supports these activities remaining within the department, along with Creative Partnerships Australia, which is one of the very good innovations in the portfolio to help bring the philanthropic and corporate sectors together with artists.
Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Could the minister outline what feedback he has received from the arts community to this change?
The feedback from the sector has been overwhelmingly positive. Understandably, there are a number of organisations that are particuarly pleased, because this rebalancing has enabled the Australia Council to address specific recommendations from the Opera Review—namely, those related to Opera Victoria and Opera Queensland.
It has also provided the opportunity to address some funding issues for the Queensland Ballet and the Brandenburg Orchestra but, across the board, I think, whether it be individual artists, small and medium organisations or the majors, there has been, generally, a positive response to my announcement. However, also there has been strongly expressed a desire for there to continue to be an avenue within the department that those organisations not eligible for Australia Council funding can pursue.
Mr President, I ask that further questions be taken on notice.
I just want to add to my answer to Senator Siewert regarding the accommodation of the National Congress. I stated that congress was staying in their own premises, and my answers were quite correct in the short term. However, I can add that the congress is also in negotiations to settle their new premises in Canberra, and I have supported those negotiations through the Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land Corporation. These negotiations are progressing well. Congress is pleased with the progress and has been out inspecting the outstanding amenity they will soon move into.
I look forward to this being finalised soon and I will give to the Senate and to the senator additional answers to the finance in that context.
I would like to add to information I said I would bring back to the chamber in answer to a question from Senator Brown yesterday. The government considers all violence and abuse against people with disability as abhorrent. The Four Corners report reinforces this government's commitment to effective safeguards for the NDIS at full scheme. Central to this commitment is the establishment of a single independent body to implement the regulatory frameworks of the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework.
The specific cases Four Corners reported on on Monday night need to be responded to by the relevant state. They have jurisdiction for ensuring participants are safe and their providers act appropriately, as we transition to the NDIS full scheme.
The minister has previously written to all states and territories to receive assurances that their quality and safeguarding systems remain adequate during transition. Given that the states remain responsible during this transition, the government was not aware of the specific details raised by Four Corners, nor were they available to the minister's office prior to his interview for the program.
Rather than proceeding with another inquiry through a royal commission, the government is focused on establishing this new body, which will address many of the issues raised by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings.
We will continue to work with the states and territories to support their quality and safeguarding efforts during the transition to full-scheme NDIS and to learn from their efforts.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Carr today relating to the report of the Standing Committee of Privileges, Search warrants and the Senate.
The exercise of the search warrants, which was the subject of the Privileges Committee report that was tabled yesterday found that the AFP raids into the office of former Senator Conroy and a staff member's home during last year's election campaign were an improper interference in the work of the parliament. The report also found that Senator Conroy had rightly claimed that photographs seized during the raids were in fact privileged, and the committee accepts that the documents may have been responsible for two NBN employees being sacked.
Now this is a circumstance where, during an election campaign and following the advice of the NBN to the minister responsible—who claims, of course, that he never spoke to the Prime Minister about this matter—the Prime Minister, we will all recall, on the night of the election said how outraged he was that the Labor Party had launched a campaign and that he was going to refer the matter to the police. Do you recall that on election night? The Prime Minister was seeking to involve the police in the political events of that election campaign where, during that election campaign, there were in fact raids undertaken against the Labor Party because of the exposure of the activities of this government with regard to the operations of the NBN.
We had a circumstance where the NBN itself acknowledged that at least one of two people who were subsequently removed from the NBN were not the subject of inquiry until that raid had actually occurred. That person confirmed to the committee that they had not previously been under investigation.
Of course the committee found that the AFP's actions were not a contempt of the parliament, because there is an extremely high bar set. You have to demonstrate in these circumstances that a person, who is accused of contempt, has the intention to actually undertake that contempt. That does not diminish the gravity of these issues. It does not for a moment diminish just how serious this question is.
We have heard today from the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the land, that this government intends to do nothing about this question; it has done nothing whatsoever about the question. It does not let the NBN off the hook in any way. It is extraordinary that, on the ABC this morning when we woke up, we heard broadcast that the NBN intended to prosecute their case against the whistleblowers despite the findings of the Privileges Committee report. What does the government have to say on this matter? Nothing. It does not see it as its responsibility to protect the privileges of this parliament. It sees it as nothing to do with it whatsoever.
What we do know is that the Prime Minister has his concerns about the opposition's attitude when his actions taken as Minister for Communications exposed a failure of this government. But that does not excuse the NBN Co's behaviour and, in particular, the chairman of the NBN, Dr Ziggy Switkowski. He is a man I have worked with closely and for whom I have a high regard. The very fact that he has had such a distinguished public service career—not only as the chair of the NBN Co but as chancellor of the RMIT, as head of ANSTO and a whole series of other responsibilities—demonstrates to me that he actually does know better. What he did during the election campaign was publish an article actually arguing in defence of these raids, which the secretary of the PM&C department subsequently said was a clear and unequivocal breach of the caretaker conventions of this country. It was a breach that was also undertaken by the department of communications, which had a draft of that article given to it by Dr Switkowski. It did nothing about that either.
We have a circumstance where staff members of Senator Conroy, as he then was, were read their rights and told that they were suspects—in the normal course of their work as staff members of a member of parliament. It is quite an extraordinary proposition that we have a circumstance where this government seeks, by their negligence, to allow this behaviour to go on. (Time expired)
That is one of the most foolish and irresponsible speeches I have ever heard in all the years I have sat in this chamber, because what Senator Carr, a former minister of the Crown who ought to know better, has done is attacked the integrity of the Australian Federal Police.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
I will come to the others whose integrity he has attacked in a moment. But, first and foremost, Senator Kim Carr has attacked the integrity of the Australian Federal Police. As the minister with responsibility for the Australian Federal Police, may I say to you, Madam Deputy President, and to anyone who may be listening to this broadcast, that there is absolutely no question whatsoever about the integrity of the Australian Federal Police, and for Senator Carr to attack their integrity is despicable.
Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: I claim to be misrepresented. The allegation I make is against this government, not the Federal Police, and the Attorney-General knows it.
Thank you, Senator Carr. That is a debating point. Senator Brandis, please resume.
Senator Carr, you protest too much. But, in fact, the allegation you make is against the Australian Federal Police, because what you are alleging, Senator Carr—do not scurry out of the chamber like a coward—is that the Australian Federal Police improperly executed a search warrant.
When the Australian Federal Police decide to execute a search warrant they only do so on the basis that they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to do so—on the basis, usually, of a complaint made to them. To suggest that the AFP have done something improper or inappropriate, as Senator Carr does, is to say that they made a decision on the basis of a misapplication of the grounds or the test for the issuance of a search warrant, and to say that is disgraceful.
Senator Carr also attacked NBN Co. As he also knows, NBN Co is an independent statutory corporation. These events occurred, incidentally, during the caretaker period of an election campaign. There is no capacity whatsoever, in particular during an election campaign, for a minister to interfere in a decision by the appropriate executives of NBN Co to make a complaint to the police that a crime may have been committed. So the attack on the integrity of NBN Co is equally specious.
Senator Carr also implied, not in the contribution we have just heard but in the question he asked of me, that the Prime Minister may have had some role in these events, to which I can tell you—and this has already been put on the public record by the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, the portfolio minister responsible for NBN Co—that, categorically, that is not the truth, and any suggestion or innuendo that it is the case is a lie.
Lastly, Senator Carr referred to the caretaker conventions. Might I remind you, Madam Deputy President, that when Senator Carr was last a minister in a government, the government of which he was a member—the second Rudd government—had such scant respect for the caretaker conventions that the then Attorney General, who was also, as I recall, the Special Minister of State and the Minister for the Public Service and Integrity, of all things, said that the caretaker conventions were 'a matter of political practice'. That was the regard that the then Attorney General and the government of which Senator Carr was a member had for the caretaker conventions—that they regarded them as merely 'a matter of political practice'. What Senator Carr has said, as I said a moment ago, is a despicable smear on the Australian Federal Police and on other innocent Australians.
I have to state at the outset my absolute contempt for the contribution we just had from the leading law officer of the land, the Attorney-General. There is absolutely no doubt that Senator Carr made no representation at all about the AFP, so the outrage—this fake outrage—that we have seen from Senator Brandis is completely misplaced and completely misaligned. There was no criticism of the AFP. I want to make that point as I commence my remarks, trying to figure out how we got to this point.
How did we get to the point where the Privileges Committee of the Senate yesterday delivered a report entitled Search warrants and the Senate and found improper interference with documentation about the NBN held by a senator and his staff?
That is what occurred and that is what that report indicated yesterday. We got here because of the disastrous management of all things NBN related since Malcolm Turnbull got his hands on it as the Minister for Communications. Everything to do with the NBN has been one stuff up after another. Mr Turnbull, as Prime Minister, has continued the problem, and I will say more about that as time permits.
But let's have a bit of a look at what was revealed about the NBN company's involvement in the appalling raid at the office of former Senator Conroy and one of his staff members. The Senate Standing Committee of Privileges report yesterday made it clear that there was indeed improper interference. Let me make it clear once again—in case somebody on the other side wants to get up and misrepresent Labor's position—I make no criticism of the Australia Federal Police in relation to this raid, but I do absolutely put on record my disgust with the way in which the NBN Co, with Mr Ziggy Switkowski as chairman, involved themselves in the raid and used documentation to take disciplinary action against two of their own employees. Now, they said different things in their submission to the inquiry. They said that they already had suspicions about one person in their organisation delivering information to Senator Conroy and others, but there was another one that they had no idea about. NBN took action against two of their employees, and one of them was only because of the material they were able to get from Senator Conroy's staffer's home.
And remember when this happened? It was in the second week of the election period last year—a highly political time. NBN Co and the government had to be held to account on many occasions in the lead-up to that election for the NBN failure in the blowout of costs, failures in delays, failures in mismanagement and failures in misrepresentation to the Australian public about what was going on. This was done primarily by Senator Conroy, who, it is fair to say, was an absolute champion for people in Australia who want and deserve a real NBN and not the lemon that is being delivered at the behest of Mr Turnbull both as the minister and now as the PM. People are disgusted, and rightly so, at the failure of Mr Turnbull and his multitechnology mix. People from all over the country—good Australians like those two employees from the NBN—wanted the truth out. They wanted Australians to know what was going on and they provided the evidence. They gave information to people who could make a difference. Australians all over the country are sending in material to us, as senators and MPs, about the NBN's failure. The Australian people actually own the NBN. The minister who sits over there runs the NBN on our behalf and he is doing a very, very bad job following in the footsteps of the now Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull.
The government did not like the scrutiny that they were being held account to. When that raid occurred in the second week of the election campaign, well, I will just leave it to decent, hardworking, thoughtful Australians to join the dots. What was truly breathtaking though was that when the AFP raid happened at the home of Senator Conroy's staffer there was an NBN employee there who with his digital camera took photographs. That is where the real improper interference happened. In the report there is significant detail. I would draw attention to page 16, where the discussion occurs about the NBN Co using that information:
We had previously been identified as having access to one of the stolen documents but had not yet commenced an active investigation against one of their own employees.
The NBN Co is a disaster. They tried to cover it up and this report proves how malicious that cover-up can be. (Time expired)
I too rise to take note of the minister's answer on this issue. Listening to the two speakers opposite, I concur with the Attorney-General that this is probably one of the most disgraceful issues under attack here. No matter how much fancy footing and words that Senator Cameron and Senator O'Neill use, this is clearly an attack on the integrity of the AFP. The investigation is still ongoing, as they well know. Again, despite the verbal contortions, there is no other conclusion that any of us in this place can draw than that they are attacking the integrity of the AFP. In fact, Senator O'Neill just went through a list of issues in relation to AFP procedures—
I did not. I went through the procedures of the NBN.
in relation to the raid as part their inquiries as well. I would like to remind those opposite of the danger of playing politics with the AFP, who must always be beyond reproach. In May last year, the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, said:
… at all times, we need to make sure that the Australian Federal Police and all our agencies are absolutely independent of political interference.
… … …
… we also need to be concerned about the appearance of police work. We need to be concerned about building confidence in our police and our agencies …
Such is the behaviour from those opposite on this question this afternoon. He went on to say:
It does undermine confidence in the independence of the police.
If you want to attack the government, attack the government, but don't be so cowardly and so wrong to actually use the AFP to try and shield your attack because it is just disgraceful.
Let's have a look at some of the facts here that those opposite have conveniently ignored in this whole process. Despite the fact that this is still a matter under AFP investigation, which those opposite know we cannot go into any detail, I was chair of the committee when this incident occurred and I have quite a different recollection. I know the Hansard record would have quite a different recollection of events from those opposite. What they have not told the Australian people is that the NBN operates critical national infrastructure and like any company it is completely within its rights to refer suspected threats of criminal activities or matters to the Federal Police. Similarly, they are also able to pursue potential code of conduct breaches internally. The government and the Attorney General have already acknowledged the work of the privileges committee and has also noted that the final report did find former Senator Conroy's claim of privilege of material seized by the AFP should be upheld. But, significantly, the Privileges Committee did not recommend that a content be found in respect of these matters.
It is utterly appalling that Labor continues to question integrity of the Australian Federal Police and the NBN. The AFP does act independently of this government. They determine what is within their jurisdiction to investigate and carry out their duties according to the law of this land. When those opposite suggest otherwise, despite their protestations that they are not, there is simply no conclusion any of us in this place can reach, considering the comments of those opposite and the nature of the question, other than that they are querying the integrity of the Australian Federal Police. There is no basis to their claim that the government in any way directed or attempted to influence the AFP on their investigation into this matter. They do act independently.
Additionally, in relation to Labor's comments about potential whistleblowers, these are also completely unfounded. So, before rushing to make wild allegations, those opposite should note that the NBN does have a well-established process for responding to information from whistleblowers, with a notification process managed by an independent third party. I understand that the NBN has advised that those protocols have never been accessed. The protocols do fully comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which seeks to protect public officials.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
On the opposition's baseless claims that the NBN is behind schedule and over budget, Senator O'Neill sits in on these estimates hearings almost as much as I do, as does Senator Dastyari, and they both know, from the clear evidence provided time and time again to the committee, that those claims are simply untrue. Just asserting them over and over again does not make them true, and neither does suggesting that this government is in any way interfering with the AFP inquiry. (Time expired)
Yesterday, the privileges committee did hand down a report that found that there was improper interference in the functions of this parliament, and there is no way that anyone in this chamber can get around those conclusions, which ought to raise very serious concerns for senators in this place and, indeed, for members in the other place. It is worth observing also that the report that was handed down yesterday was adopted in this chamber without opposition and that it makes a series of very acute observations about the issues that arise in relation to the raids that took place during the last election campaign.
Let us recall the gravity of that decision to execute a search warrant during an election period. What we saw was that, at the direction and request of a wholly-owned government business enterprise, a search was undertaken to seize documents from a sitting parliamentarian—from a senator, Senator Conroy, who had been tenacious and assiduous in chasing down the absolutely grotesque failures associated with the NBN project in the period since Mr Turnbull, the Prime Minister, assumed responsibility for that project.
Before I move on to considering the nature of those failures, I want to put on record again, because it appears to be difficult for senators on the other side of the chamber to understand this, that we have no criticism of the AFP. We make no criticism of the AFP because, as is observed in the report that was adopted here yesterday, the officers who executed that warrant did so in good faith and in the belief that they were pursuing a legitimate complaint. My concern is about the nature of the complaint and the reason that that complaint was brought forward, because it is hard not to observe the correlation between the grotesque failures and enormous shortcomings in the NBN project in the period since Mr Turnbull had responsibility for it and the desire to uncover whistleblowers who had blown the whistle on these shortcomings. What has happened since Mr Turnbull took over this project? He promised a great deal about providing an NBN that would be cheaper and more effective than the one—
Faster.
Faster and sooner. But what actually happened? The cost of the NBN, on the watch of Mr Turnbull, blew out to $50 billion, more than twice what had been promised by Mr Turnbull during his campaign. We had a promise from Mr Turnbull that every Australian household would have access to the NBN by 2016, and where are we now? At this point in time, more than seven million Australian households are still waiting for that service. Are people satisfied with the service that they are receiving from the NBN? No, they are not at all, and the number of complaints about the NBN has blown out by about 150 per cent in the last year alone. Who is responsible for this failure, you ask? There is no escaping it because one person and one person alone has claimed responsibility for this project, and that person is Mr Turnbull. That person is the Prime Minister. It is hard not to see a relationship between this failure, the Prime Minister's responsibility for this failure and the extraordinary decision undertaken by the NBN Co during an election to pursue a complaint that resulted in a raid on the offices of a sitting member of parliament who had been pursuing that failure.
It is time for the government to come clean about their role in this process, and I am afraid I have no confidence in the assurances provided here today, because, time and time again, instead of direct answers, we see obfuscation and deferral on issues of great significance in relation to the integrity of processes by this government. The Senate has applied itself to examining this issue and the legal issues. It is time for the government to do the same.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples.
The minister at first said he understood the congress were staying in Redfern, and I am glad he came back and corrected the record to say that they were not. He also said he understands they are happy with their new accommodation. Let's put this in context: they are being kicked out of the ILC headquarters by 30 April. So, yes, they do have premises for the short term, 30 April, and, yes, they are 'happy', as I understand it, to be in Canberra in the premises they are being offered, because they have nowhere else to go. I will not say the minister misled the chamber, but, in fact, he did not fully indicate the context in which the happiness to be in the premises is expressed. It is expressed as, 'At least we'll have a place to operate from.' But, my understanding is that they very clearly want to stay in their current location in Redfern. They are not happy to be moving—can we first be clear about that?
The other issues I asked about related to cost. Why was congress being charged $24,000 a month when the new tenants are only being asked for $50,000 a year? When the minister corrected his answer, I think he said he would provide further information on that. That information should be very illuminating. Let us go back to the issue of congress's move. They cannot afford to move. They do not know how they are going to afford to pay to get their offices moved from Redfern to Canberra. It would be really good for them to know that. In fact, they may have to hire a truck and move themselves.
A really important issue is that congress refitted their current accommodation to the cost of about a million dollars, in order to make an empty floor usable space. That is $1 million to an organisation that has since had its funding cut. That is a lot of money. It does not know if it is going to get that money refunded or what is going to happen. That is another important point that needs to be looked at.
Another point I raised in my question to the minister is around the divestment application. As I understand it, congress made an application, an approach to ILC, a number of years ago to divest that floor, which ILC can do, to congress so that they would have permanent office space. I understand that they were asked to provide more information, and they did, but not a lot of action was taken on the divestment. Of course, the ILC then lost a significant amount of money when the government cut their funds. That was never progressed. The minister did not answer my question about what happened to the divestment application. He did not say whether he knew about it, so I will still pursue those questions. Why was that application to divest not progressed? If it had, they would not be in this situation now.
We have got to remember that the National Congress of Australia's First People is an elected representative body of our first peoples. They are being moved out of Redfern, effectively against their will. To have to relocate to Canberra away from their client base—and so not have ready access to their client base—seems to me to be an inappropriate way to treat the national congress that is the representative of Australia's first peoples. I look forward to hearing the minister's response to the questions that he did not answer during question time and to hearing him, perhaps, further correct the record that the congress is happy in the context of: 'At least they've got a roof over their heads.' They are not happy to be moved. That is my very clear understanding. I have checked that, subsequent to the minister coming in here to correct the record. I have checked that, yes, they are happy they will have a roof over their heads, but, no, they are not happy in any way that they have to move or that it looks like they will lose $1 million worth of fit-out for their current offices.
Question agreed to.
I give notice of my intention for the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw businesses of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 20 June 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health Measures No. 4) Regulation 2016.
Thank you, Senator Williams.
I, on behalf Senator Whish-Wilson, withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name for today.
It is so done.
by leave—I move:
That a leave of absence be granted to Senator Xenophon for 29 and 30 March 2017 due to a death in the family.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5, standing in my name and in the name of Senator Xenophon, proposing a reference to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee relating to the affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.
Leave granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, move the motion as amended:
That the following matters be referred on 1 June 2017 to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 November 2017:
The value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs, with particular reference to:
The value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs, with particular reference to:
(a) private and public hospital costs and the interaction between the private and public hospital systems including private patients in public hospitals and any impact on waiting lists;
(b) the effect of co-payments and medical gaps on financial and health outcomes;
(c) private health insurance product design including product exclusions and benefit levels, including rebate consistency and public disclosure requirements;
(d) the use and sharing of membership and related health data;
(e) the take-up rates of private health insurance, including as they relate to the Medicare levy surcharge and Lifetime Health Cover loading;
(f) the relevance and consistency of standards, including those relating to informed financial consent for medical practitioners, private health insurance providers and private hospitals;
(g) medical services delivery methods, including health care in homes and other models;
(h) the role and function of:
(i) medical pricing schedules, including the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Australian Medical Association fee schedule and private health insurers’ fee schedules,
(ii) the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in regulating private health insurers, and
(iii) the Department of Health and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman in regulating private health insurers and private hospital operators;
(i) the current government incentives for private health;
(j) the operation of relevant legislative and regulatory instruments; and
(k) any other related matter.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Private health insurance is important and valuable. Private health insurance reduces pressure on waiting times at hospitals; offers Australians greater choice of treatment; provides coverage of services, such as dental and optical; and gives patients their choice of doctor. The Turnbull government realises cost-of-living pressures are a major concern for Australian families. The government is determined that more can be done to get better value for families. The government has established the Private Health Ministerial Advisory Committee, led by Dr Jeff Harmer AO, which is already looking at ways to provide better value for money. Through this group, Minister Hunt will work with insurers over the next year to find ways insurers can deliver more value for customers without compromising on the quality of cover. As such, the government does not support using the Senate's limited resources for an additional inquiry.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens will be supporting this motion. As the chair of the committee, I would like to let the chamber know that the community affairs committee is very overworked. While we welcome all the inquiries that are referred to us, we want to let the chamber know that we will have difficulty processing this until the week after the budget. Senator Griff understands that, and I understand Labor does too. We will not be doing any work on this, with the acknowledgement of the chamber, until after budget week. Then, of course, it will be full steam ahead.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Fifield, I move:
That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 9 May 2017 be from 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 11 May 2017 be from 9.30 am to 6 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and that:
(a) the routine of business from 8.30 pm on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 shall be:
(i) Budget statement and documents 2017-18, and
(ii) adjournment; and
(b) the routine of business from 8 pm on Thursday, 11 May 2017 shall be:
(i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and
(ii) adjournment.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Fifield, I move:
That the order of the Senate of 8 November 2016 relating to the hearings for the 2017-18 Budget estimates, be amended as follows:
after paragraph (2), insert:
(2A) That cross portfolio estimates hearings on Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters be scheduled for Friday, 26 May 2017 and Friday, 27 October 2017.
Question agreed to.
I move the motion as amended:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017
Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2017
Disability Services Amendment (Linking Upper Age Limits for Disability Employment Services to Pension Age) Bill 2017
Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Polar Code) Bill 2017.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to workplace relations, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
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.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The attack on the wages of our lowest paid people in this country is relentless.
The people who collect our trolleys at Coles and Woolworths, and those who flip our burgers at Hungry Jack's or McDonald's or who fry the chicken at KFC are getting paid less than the legal minimum. They certainly have been for a number of years, and this needs to be fixed.
There is a loophole in the Fair Work Act 2009 that says if you are on an enterprise agreement you cannot be paid less than the legal minimum in the award, but that provision only applies to your nine-to-five working hours on Monday to Friday. The protection does not apply to people who work on weekends or at nights and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of workers—mostly young workers—are getting paid very low wages and have been underpaid by these very large corporations over many years because of substandard deals that have been approved by the Fair Work Commission. On one estimate today these young people are being underpaid one million dollars a day. One million dollars a day is going to corporations such as Coles, Woolworths, Hungry Jack's, KFC and McDonald's instead of being paid to those people who are working late at nights and during weekends. This Bill will fix this, because every 18- or 19-year-old who is out there doing a job in a fast-food restaurant or supermarket should be paid the legal minimum. They know that without being paid the legal minimum it is hard to make ends meet, and I think that every parent who has a child working at one of these institutions would be horrified to know that they are not getting paid the minimum award rate.
Now, with the aftermath of the Fair Work Commission's decision to cut penalty rates for people working in retail, hospitality, pharmaceuticals and fast-food industries, we need to take further legislative action. Before the last election the Greens were the only party that committed to legislating to protect weekend rates of pay. We did so because weekend rates are an integral part of people's rights at work, with hundreds of thousands of Australians depending on weekend rates to make ends meet. Young people in particular depend on weekend rates to support themselves while they study. Young people are already facing unaffordable housing, insecure work and low levels of student assistance, so cutting weekend rates will place them under immense pressure.
It is time that people have certainty about the future of their weekend rates. It is time to ensure that the law protects people's weekend rates. And that is what the Australian Greens are doing with the introduction by Mr Bandt in the other place of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Weekend Pay and Penalty Rates) Bill 2017 which will override the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut weekend rates.
Australia is not America, and that is a good thing, because in Australia we believe that people who spend their time working deserve a minimum wage, and minimum rights and conditions. We believe that having a job should not come at any cost—that there is a limit to what can be traded away. And we believe that, no matter where in you live in Australia, you deserve the same minimum wage, rights and conditions at work.
That is why we have national employment standards set out and protected by national legislation. Here in Australia we have a proud history of a strong labour union movement that exists to protect people's rights at work. The labour movement has fought to secure the weekend and an eight-hour working day, and they have ensured those working outside of these hours are fairly compensated through higher pay rates. We have unions who, time after time, have rallied together and fought the conservatives' attempts to cut the conditions that Australian workers deserve, and that step up when conservative governments try to tip the balance against ordinary working people.
I am proud to be part of a party that always puts people's rights at work ahead of big business interests. The Greens always have and always will protect people's rights at work. But what is clear is that our system has failed some of our lowest-paid workers in Australia. In our fast food companies and supermarket giants, workplace agreements have been struck that leave workers, some of our lowest-paid workers, worse off.
Thanks to a small number of dedicated individuals, it has been revealed that at some of Australia's largest businesses—Coles and Woolworths, Domino's, McDonald's, Hungry Jack's and KFC—workers have been underpaid hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The deal struck with Coles saw the company paying night and weekend penalty rates lower than the award, leaving many workers out of pocket overall, with estimates that the underpayment is worth between $70 million to $100 million a year.
Woolworths, Australia's largest employer, has an almost identical agreement to Coles, suggesting many of its workers have also been underpaid. McDonald's workers are even worse off. It is likely that hundreds of thousands of workers have been underpaid at McDonald's. In 2013, McDonald's negotiated an agreement with the Shop, Distributive and Allied (SDA) Employees' Association under which some McDonald's employees are paid nearly one-third less than the award. McDonald's workers seem to be out of pocket by at least $50 million a year, including some young workers who earn just shy of $10 an hour.
Fairfax Media estimates that Woolworths, Hungry Jack's and KFC together have short-changed workers by about a billion dollars over five years. As part of its investigation, Fairfax Media spoke to a young woman, Brigid Forrester, who until recently, worked up to four shifts a week at a McDonald's store in Perth, including Sunday evenings from 4 pm to 10 pm, and she was not paid penalty rates. One 19-year-old in South Australia was paid $19,000 for their year's work at McDonald's when they should have received $25,000 under the award.
A separate investigation by Fairfax discovered that, despite rising profits, widespread underpayments in wages were occurring at Domino's who struck an enterprise bargaining agreement allowing them not to pay penalty rates for years.
These are not corporations that are short of a quid. Last year, Woolworths had $58 billion in sales and Coles food and liquor sales alone brought in $32.6 billion. In 2013, McDonald's was estimated to have a turnover of $4 billion. At a very minimum these companies can afford to pay the basic legal minimum wage set out in the award to people working late at night or on weekends.
I think that most people in this country would be shocked to know that the people sitting behind the counter at these large corporations, which are meant to be regulated by federal law and where there are meant to be people looking after their interests, can be paid less than the award.
The Government side of politics has taken donations from these corporations. So have the Labor Party. But I am hoping that in this Parliament, instead of saying that it is okay for 18- or 19-year-olds to get less than the award, that this will be a wake-up call for this Parliament—that this Bill can get consensus across the Parliament to close this loophole. As I said, we have a provision in the Act that says agreements cannot go below the award for the ordinary 38 hours. Let's extend that to cover night-time work and weekend work as well.
I want to acknowledge a number of people who have uncovered this scandal which is going on in some of our biggest employers. Josh Cullinan, in his spare time, has personally investigated and compiled evidence of this gross underpayment of employees. His work should be acknowledged. As should the reporters Ben Schneiders, Royce Millar, Nick Toscano, Adele Ferguson, Mario Christodoulou and other members of the Fairfax Media team for their incredible work in further investigating and exposing these underpayments. I also want to acknowledge the workers who are working for these companies Duncan Hart, Penny Vickers and Michael Johnstone, who have taken it upon themselves to fight for their rights at work, and the rights of tens of thousands of their colleagues. And there is Siobhan Kelly, a lawyer who successfully ran the appeal case against Coles with Duncan and Josh, against teams of lawyers.
When this Parliament sees wrongdoing by unscrupulous employers, we should stand up to it. When this Parliament sees young workers working around the clock and getting paid less than the legal minimum set out in our legislation we should do something about. The Greens will. We have brought a Bill to this parliament. When Fairfax Media, Four Corners and Michael Fraser revealed the rampant worker exploitation at 7-Eleven, we brought that to Parliament too. When the Fair Work Commission decided to cut penalty rates, we brought that to Parliament as well. We had those cases heard in front of a Senate inquiry and we have legislation in front of Parliament to fix that.
It comes down to a fundamental point, one that I think everyone here should be able to agree with: an 18 year-old working nights at McDonald's should not be getting paid less than the legal minimum wage set out in the award. Otherwise, what are awards for? Why do we have federal legislation setting out minimum wages and conditions if someone is able to undercut it? They should not be able to undercut it. That is what a legal minimum is. If the law allows deals to be done that underpay our lowest-paid workers, then the law needs to be fixed.
This Bill will close that loophole in our national employment laws that unscrupulous big business employers have exploited to strike deals with organisations like the SDA that result in some of our low-paid workers being drastically underpaid. It provides a simple yet important reform. It extends protections for employees covered by an enterprise agreement to require employers to pay a base rate of pay, full rate of pay and any casual loading that is no less than the relevant award or national minimum wage order. This amendment will apply to existing agreements and to those that are yet to come into effect.
I would ask everyone here in this place—every member of parliament—to ask themselves this: if their 17-, 18- or 19-year-old daughter went off to work at one of these large institutions, would they like them to be paid less than the minimum award rate of pay? Do they think it is fair that their son or daughter could be paid less than the minimum award? If they do not think that is fair then it is not fair for everyone else who relies on these awards to make ends meet. We should fix it, we have the capacity to fix it and that is why I commend this Bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the growth of the craft brewing sector in recent years as a generator of employment, tourism and exports in capital cities and regional communities;
(b) further notes that:
(i) there is an inequity between how Commonwealth excise is calculated for small and large scale brewers which disadvantages the craft brewing sector,
(ii) excise currently accounts for a disproportionate amount of the costs of production for small brewers and the calculation of excise imposes a significant burden on them, and
(iii) this small business sector provides local employment and is an emerging tourism attraction; and
(c) urges:
(i) the Australian Government to ensure policy settings which encourage the realisation of the potential of the craft brewing sector, and
(ii) state and local governments to update their planning controls and development approval to facilitate the growth of the craft brewing sector.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government notes the important role the craft brewing sector plays in our communities. Not only do Australians and tourists enjoy their products, but many craft breweries are also small businesses employing Australians. Many would enjoy the benefits which would flow to them from the government's enterprise tax plan. When it comes to the taxation arrangements of the craft brewing sector, there has been a breweries excise refund scheme in place since 1 July 2000. The brewery excise refund is now $30,000 with no minimum production volume. Breweries are eligible for the refund only if they are legally and economically independent from other entities that operate breweries. Any changes to taxation arrangements are always considered as part of the usual budget process.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Moore, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, by no later than 3.30 pm on 30 March 2017:
(a) the contract or Memorandum of Understanding between the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) and the Export Finance and Investment Corporation (EFIC);
(b) the NAIF Risk Appetite Statement;
(c) the NAIF Public Interest Test;
(d) any policies or other documents to be used by the NAIF Board to satisfy themselves that the project meets each of the mandatory criteria as set out in the NAIF Investment Mandate; and
(e) any policies or other documents to be used by the NAIF Board to satisfy themselves that the project meets each of the non-mandatory criteria as set out in the NAIF Investment Mandate.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government opposes this motion on the basis that the minister is not in possession of these documents.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Moore, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was formed nearly 30 years ago, bringing together Rotary International, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) in a common cause: to eradicate polio once and for all,
(ii) when GPEI commenced, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries annually,
(iii) in 2016, only 37 cases of polio were recorded in three countries – Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria – two of which are priorities for Australian development assistance, and
(iv) a funding gap of $US 1.3 billion for implementing the GPEI's current strategic plan needs to be filled to complete the task of polio eradication within the next three years;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) investment in completing polio eradication will benefit future generations of children who will be free of this devastating disease, and other health programs and initiatives will benefit from the knowledge and experience gained through polio eradication,
(ii) completing eradication of polio would be the first concrete success of the Sustainable Development Goals, providing a basis for reaching children with life-saving interventions in the most remote, vulnerable and socially-excluded communities,
(iii) Commonwealth leaders, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, agreed at the latest Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November 2015 to accelerate action and renew financial support to eradicate polio, and
(iv) the current Parliaments of Australia and other countries have the opportunity to be the elected representatives who ended polio completely; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to maintain its annual contribution to GPEI at $15 million in the next two financial years, to follow through on this renewed commitment and assist in making the end of polio a reality.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
You have been granted leave for one minute.
The Australian government is committed to polio eradication, and it has provided $80 million since 2011 to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative to date. Our current four-year polio and routine immunisation commitment includes $36 million to the initiative and $36 million to the World Bank to strengthen immunisation systems in our region to avert the risk of polio re-emerging. The government is not in a position to support paragraph (c) of the motion as it exceeds current commitments. For this reason, we would oppose the motion.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator O'Neill, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the life insurance industry be extended to 31 October 2017.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to add the names of Senator Farrell and Senator Cash to general business notice of motion No. 292.
So added, Senator Bernardi.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Farrell and Cash, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the success of the South Australian Head of the River School rowing regatta which took place on 25 March 2017,
(ii) that the regatta featured over 1,000 student athletes and thousands of supportive parents, coaches and South Australian rowing officials, and
(iii) that over 50 per cent of athletes competing in the regatta were female, who also comprise a majority of the rowers registered with the South Australian Rowing Association;
(b) congratulates the South Australian Rowing Association for its success in encouraging participation in rowing, and particularly for the high level of participation by female athletes; and
(c) commends Rowing Australia and its member state associations for their efforts in promoting rowing and their aim to be the world's number one rowing nation.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Siewert and Reynolds, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 2 April 2017 is the ninth anniversary of World Autism Awareness Day,
(ii) the theme of World Autism Awareness Day 2017 is 'Towards autonomy and self-determination', and
(iii) current estimates indicate that over 1 in 100 Australians are on the autism spectrum;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) awareness of autism is relatively high in the community, with recent polling commissioned by Amaze showing that over 50 per cent of Australians know or have known someone on the autism spectrum,
(ii) the same poll showed that 74 per cent of Australians agreed that autism and its associated behaviour is still very misunderstood by the broader community, with only 29 per cent agreeing that they have a good understanding of how to support people on the autism spectrum, and
(iii) more needs to be done to increase community understanding and acceptance of autism to better support autistic Australians to live an ordinary life; and
(c) recognises that the same polling showed that 72 per cent of Australians agreed that more needs to be done in schools, workplaces and the wider community to better support autistic Australians, and urges all governments to consider the specific needs of autistic Australians in the development of policy and programs.
Question agreed to.
Subject to Senator McGrath giving us 60 seconds of his opinions, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with concern reports that the Royal Australian Navy's two largest ships, the Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, have engine problems and have been unable to join the emergency response to Cyclone Debbie;
(b) notes that:
(i) Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships are our key asset for humanitarian and disaster relief (HADR) operations, and
(ii) HMAS Canberra was conducting trials with the United States' Marine Corps as recently as last week; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to explain why our premier HADR assets were not available to respond to a long-forecast potential disaster situation.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion displays a complete lack of understanding about defence preparedness arrangements. Under the ADF's regular planning cycle, HMAS Choules assumed duties as the on-line-already ship to support any humanitarian and disaster relief requirements in mid-March. She arrived in Brisbane this morning to pick up stores before heading towards affected areas.
During recent first-of-class flight trials, a propulsion issue was identified aboard HMAS Canberra, and she is currently being inspected. As a prudent measure, the same inspections were conducted on HMAS Adelaide and identified emergent issues. As advised by Navy, both ships are still in the operational test and evaluation period, which is the expected period in which such issues are identified prior to final operational capability being declared. These inspections have had no impact on Defence meeting its operational tasks.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Lambie, Hinch, Hanson and McKim, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes, with respect to legal assistance services:
(i) legal aid commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and Family Violence Prevention Legal Services ("legal assistance services") are severely underfunded,
(ii) the Government plans to cut a further $51 million from community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services from 1 July 2017, resulting in closures and affecting thousands of marginalised and disenfranchised Australians,
(iii) in 1997, the Government spent $11.22 per capita each year on legal aid compared to $7.84 per capita today – its share of funding (with the states and territories) has fallen from 55 per cent in 1997 to 35 per cent, and
(iv) the Productivity Commission has recommended that an additional $200 million is needed for civil legal aid alone;
(b) recognises that this legal assistance underfunding means:
(i) just 8 per cent of Australians qualify for legal aid under restrictive means tests, while 14 per cent of Australians are living beneath the poverty line,
(ii) around 10,000 Australians each year are forced to represent themselves in court,
(iii) community legal centres are forced to turn away over 160,000 people a year, and
(iv) the Productivity Commission found that investing in legal assistance services generates significant downstream savings;
(c) acknowledges, with respect to the underfunding of the federal courts:
(i) the neglect of the Federal and Family Courts means that families facing the most serious family law issues can wait up to three years before a final trial,
(ii) that these unacceptably long delays in hearings and determinations are denying justice and fairness to Australians seeking protection and finality in their legal affairs, with detrimental impacts on vulnerable children, families, business, and entire communities, and
(iii) a 2014 KPMG report given to the Government, but not released, found the Federal, Family and Federal Circuit Courts were ontrack for a combined budget shortfall of $75 million by 2017-18 which will result in further cuts to their services; and
(d) calls on the Government to:
(i) immediately reverse the imminent cuts to community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services,
(ii) release the 2014 KPMG Report on the Federal Courts given to the Attorney-General,
(iii) commit to adequate and sustainable longer-term funding contributions to the legal assistance sector, and
(iv) review resourcing for the federal courts and identify what resources are required to address unacceptable delays in hearing and determinations.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Thank you. The government is committed to access to justice and supports the important work of the legal assistance sector. In a tight fiscal environment, the government is providing $353 million for Indigenous legal assistance services. This is not a matter for the Commonwealth alone. Investment from the states and territories is also crucial. The Commonwealth's contribution is more than 95 per cent of the funding for Indigenous legal assistance providers.
Additional funding has also been provided to the federal courts. A funding injection of $22.5 million was announced in the 2015-16 budget, together with many new administrative arrangements to support the financial sustainability of the courts and avoid cuts to front-line services.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Kakoschke-Moore be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 23 November 2016, the Senate passed a motion known as Senate Order 20C ("the Order") requiring rolling disclosure of meetings between current ministers, senior officials and former ministers,
(ii) the purpose of the Order is to ensure that the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards is adhered to,
(iii) only one minister has so far complied with the Order,
(iv) during the estimates hearing on 28 February 2017, the Attorney-General could not confirm whether the Government will comply with the Order due to an alleged invalidity, and
(v) the Acting Clerk has provided advice that the Order is valid in a letter dated 28 February 2017, and tabled with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the same day; and
(b) calls on the Government to abide by the Order.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is considering this order. There is an issue about the extent to which the order imposes obligations on House of Representatives ministers. The Clerk of the House of Representatives has provided advice that an order of the Senate cannot bind House of Representatives ministers. In view of that, consideration is being given by the government to how or whether this order can or should be complied with.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 297 standing in my name today, which concerns an order for the production of documents relating to Saudi Arabia and Mr Pyne.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with concern reports that:
(i) the Saudi Arabian Government is breaking humanitarian law in its attacks on Yemen by bombing schools, hospitals and refugee camps, and is pushing Yemenis towards famine by blocking supply routes,
(ii) the Australian Defence Department has approved four military exports to Saudi Arabia in the past year and that the Australian Government is leading a push for more, and
(iii) the Minister for Defence Industry, the Honourable Christopher Pyne, MP, visited Riyadh in December 2016 to promote Australian defence material to senior government figures, including Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah al-Saud, the head of Saudi Arabia's National Guard;
(b) notes that the Dutch Parliament voted in 2016 to ban military exports to Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom (UK) started a review in February aimed at halting UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and former US President Barack Obama halted the sale of precision-guided technology to Saudi Arabia, all on humanitarian grounds; and
(c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, by no later than 6 pm on 30 March 2017:
(i) the Minister for Defence Industry's itinerary in Saudi Arabia, and
(ii) any documents relating to approvals for military exports to Saudi Arabia since January 2016.
The question is that notice of motion No. 297 as amended moved by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia's offshore processing is a deliberately cruel policy that has created a humanitarian crisis,
(ii) men, women and children who have sought asylum have suffered immeasurable harm at Australia's hands, including death, psychological trauma and serious injuries,
(iii) the former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mr Juan Mendez, concluded Australia had "violated the right of the asylum seekers, including children, to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment",
(iv) Amnesty International says the Nauru detention centre was "explicitly designed to inflict incalculable damage on hundreds of women, men and children",
(v) indefinite offshore detention has led to global condemnation and a lowering of Australia's international standing,
(vi) despite the Manus Island processing centre being declared illegal by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in April 2016, the Australian Government has failed to resettle people in its care and forcibly deported an unknown number of people from Papua New Guinea,
(vii) the Department of Immigration and Border Protection says the cost of establishing and running offshore detention has exceeded $4.4 billion since 2013,
(viii) the Australian National Audit Office found that it costs $573,000 per person per year to keep people locked up in offshore detention,
(ix) despite the massive human and financial cost of this policy, that boats carrying people seeking asylum continue to attempt to reach Australia,
(x) many of these asylum seekers have been turned around to meet an unknown fate at sea or potentially refouled, contrary to Australia's international legal and moral obligations, and
(xi) despite the Australian Government's so-called "deal" with the United States, no one has been resettled in that country; and
(b) calls on the Government to end offshore detention, and bring every man woman and child, detained on Papua New Guinea and Nauru, to Australia.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not waiver in our commitment to secure Australia's borders. Regional processing is a key component of our border protection framework. Australians have not forgotten what happened when Labor and the Greens lost control of our borders: 1,200 people drowned at sea, 8,000 children were placed into detention and 50,000 people arrived on more than 800 boats. Labor and the Greens have learned nothing and will do it all again if given the chance. The government's border protection policies will not change. No-one in regional processing centres will be resettled in Australia.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 27 March 2017, the ABC's Four Corners program clearly showed that abuse, violence and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential care continues,
(ii) previous evidence of severe abuse, violence and neglect was revealed by the media and during an inquiry of the Community Affairs References Committee,
(iii) on 25 November 2015, the Community Affairs References Committee tabled a report in the Senate with 30 recommendations addressing widespread instances of abuse, violence and neglect of people with disability in residential and institutional settings, and
(iv) the Government responded to the recommendations in this report on 2 March 2017, where they refused to commit to a royal commission into the issue; and
(b) calls on the Government to reconsider its decision and commit to a royal commission into abuse, violence and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential settings.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Thank you. Rather than proceeding with another inquiry with a royal commission, the government is focused on establishing a new independent body to implement the NDIS quality and safeguards framework, which will address many of the issues raised by the committee. The development and implementation of the framework has been informed by the Senate committee inquiry and two other inquiries by the Victorian Parliament and the Victorian Ombudsman.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Thank you. I just want to make it clear that Labor wants an independent national inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disabilities. The stories told on Four Corners were harrowing. They were gut-wrenching. They cannot be ignored. These incidents of sexual and physical abuse were sickening. The abuse of vulnerable people with disability is a national shame and needs to be investigated.
The government's response is also shameful. It took the government 15 months to respond to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disabilities in institutional and residential settings. It was a woefully inadequate response, with only one of the committee's 30 recommendations agreed to by the government. The voices of people who have been abused must be heard. Their voices can no longer be ignored. That is why Labor wants an national inquiry, and that is why we are talking with families, carers and disability organisations about the best type of inquiry and the best way forward.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 294, relating to the New South Wales RSL.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) draws to the attention of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Honourable Dan Tehan MP, the work of the CEO of the RSL NSW, Mr Glenn Kolomeitz, in exposing the financial misconduct and poor governance at the State Council Level of RSL NSW, and notes that he has been under attack by his own organisation;
(b) calls on the RSL NSW State Council and its caretaker management team to allow Mr Kolomeitz to get on with the job that he was asked to do – fixing RSL NSW’s financial and structural problems and developing funding and welfare projects so as to support veterans and their families that are doing it tough; and
(c) acknowledges that the RSL needs younger veterans within the organisation to make sure it is relevant, and to allow Mr Kolomeitz to provide for the ongoing care, compensation, and commemoration of serving and ex-serving defence force personnel and their families.
The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon and Senator Griff, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the National Consumer Protection Framework, in relation to interactive gambling, is currently being developed,
(ii) Commonwealth, state and territory gambling ministers are meeting regarding the Framework on 31 March 2017,
(iii) the Framework is being developed as a response to the O'Farrell Review and that gaming ministers are aiming to develop a better harm–minimisation strategy around online services,
(iv) currently, harm–minimisation strategies are a matter for states and territories, despite the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) (IGA) regulating electronic gambling,
(v) there is no national gambling regulator and the Nick Xenophon Team's amendment to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, to establish a national regulator, was rejected by the Government,
(vi) the Framework will not apply to land-based betting,
(vii) land-based betting includes electronic betting terminals (EBTs) which are permitted under the IGA but harm–minimisation strategies are regulated by states and territories,
(viii) statistics show at least 400,000 Australians either have a significant gambling addiction or are showing signs of developing a problem – the Productivity Commission has also stated that every problem gambler impacts on average on seven other people, and
(ix) the harm caused by gambling, such as financial hardship, relationship breakdown and emotional harm is the same, regardless of what form of gambling the harm arises from; and
(b) calls on the Government to develop and apply the National Consumer Protection Framework to land-based betting, as well as online gambling.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government cannot support this motion. The Commonwealth contributes to the regulation of online gambling, through the Interactive Gambling Act, given that the internet is not confined to state and territory borders. The regulation of all other forms of land based gambling, which are wholly contained within state and territory jurisdictions, has always been a matter for state and territory governments through their own legislation and individual regulators. The Australian government believes that states and territories are best placed to regulate land based gambling services and venues within their jurisdictions.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The opposition will not be supporting this motion today. Whilst we recognise Senator Kakoschke-Moore's intent, we are unable to support all of the points raised in this motion. We recognise that well regulated gambling has a place in Australian society and that the growth of illegal online gambling is of great concern. While the majority of people gamble in a responsible manner, Labor knows that gambling in our community can in some cases have devastating social, financial and emotional consequences.
In relation to the National Consumer Protection Framework, we welcome the government's response to the O'Farrell review and the commitment by the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers to work together to develop and establish this important work. We understand that the Commonwealth, state and territory gambling ministers are meeting this Friday to progress work around the National Consumer Protection Framework. It is our expectation that the National Consumer Protection Framework be completed without delay. We do not want to wait another three years for this important work to be concluded.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Kakoschke-Moore be agreed to.
I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 10 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:
That low and middle income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull Government.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
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.
I rise to speak on the matter of public importance requested by Senator Gallagher today—that low- and middle-income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government—but before I turn to those comments, with the indulgence of the Senate I want to place on record my thoughts and prayers for North Queenslanders, particularly those in Bowen, Airlie Beach and Proserpine who at the moment find themselves with roads cut. I want to express our solidarity with those people. I also note with some gratitude that the last time I checked there had been no reports of injury so far from the Whitsunday Islands. I also note the prospect of major flooding of the major rivers north of Ayr to the New South Wales border. I reiterate the very good advice that the state authorities provide: if it is flooded, forget it.
It is quite disappointing that, in a week in which we are discussing and looking at the issue of penalty rate cuts and the inaction of this government in relation to those penalty cuts, we also a see a government demonstrating its twisted priorities by continuing to pursue as its central economic piece of work the enterprise tax plan, which at its heart is a $50 billion tax cut for big businesses and, as part of that, a $7.4 billion tax cut for the major banks and also a very generous windfall for multinational companies. This displays the treatment that this government is meting out to low- and middle-income Australians. We see this every day: a government that fails to act, fails to lead and fails to secure a prosperous future for everyday Australians. A strong middle class is a source of growth, not just a consequence of it.
The Prime Minister's trickle-down rhetoric of tax cuts for the rich, big business and big banks is an impediment to the growth that we need. The living standards in middle Australia have supported our economy in a period when run-away inequality and wealth concentration has destabilised both the economies and the politics of the US and much of Europe. However, we are not immune to such effects. Under the failed leadership of both Prime Ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott, growth, particularly in the middle class, has shrunk significantly. These are the alarming economic facts facing middle Australia: the economy is growing below trend; the unemployment rate has increased and is now close to six per cent; and underemployment is at record highs. There are fewer full-time jobs than there were a year ago and wages growth is at record lows. What is the government's response to these issues? Backing in penalty rate cuts that impact those on low and middle incomes.
I have already said in this chamber today that I agree with the assessment of the Treasurer that low wages growth is one of the greatest threats to our economy. If one accepts that as a premise then the attacks on the take-home pay of 700,000 low-income workers would have to be a disaster for economic growth for the future, as well as being a disaster for the people affected by those cuts. The 2011 ABS census confirms that workers in the affected industries are amongst the lowest paid in Australia. These cuts to wages severely impact those who are struggling most to make ends meet, particularly students and others who rely sometimes solely on weekend penalty rates. I note that the state Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in Queensland has issued some figures as to the number of employees in parts of Queensland who are award-reliant retail and hospitality workers who work on a Sunday. We can see that in Cairns there are something like 2,300 workers; in Townsville, 2,000 workers; in Mackay, 2,000 workers; in Fitzroy, 2,100; in the outback of Queensland, 787; in Wide Bay, 2,500; in the Darling Downs-Maranoa, 1,270; in Toowoomba, around 1,200; on the Gold Coast, 7,400; and on the Sunshine Coast 4,230. These are the people who are behind the statistics on the impact of these penalty rate cuts.
In April 2015, the McKell Institute conducted a study as to the economic impact of penalty rate cuts in Australia's retail and hospitality industries. The findings of that report were not surprising and predicted the harmful effects of the Fair Work Commission's decision. They found that the cuts to penalty rates in these industries would:
… result in a commensurate reduction in the disposable income of those workers, leaving less money available for spending on local goods and services.
The McKell Institute conducted studies following the decision and found that the lowest income earners who rely heavily on penalty rates would be most adversely affected. In their February 2017 report, the institute found full-time and part-time employees in the retail industry not covered by an enterprise agreement would lose at least $72.90 per eight-hour Sunday shift. Casual retail workers would face losing a minimum of $45.56 per Sunday shift. In 2016, a report entitled Choosing opportunity identified one of the many challenges associated with being a low-income worker, such as owning a home and being able to afford basic services and amenities in the near stagnant wage growth of recent years. The Prime Minister suggested that penalty rates could be offset by normal wage increases over time. The Australia Institute calculates that, at current wage growth rates, it would take 17 years until higher wages for retail workers would offset the damaging consequences of this decision.
Another issue where the Turnbull government has failed low- and middle-income workers is in relation to housing affordability, which is a key factor when it comes to inequality. But before I touch on that point, I would also like to quote from a recent article that goes behind the statistics to talk about the people who are affected by these penalty rate cuts. I note a recent news.com.au article, which states:
A Brisbane woman, who did not want to be named, is “stressed” knowing her pay packet is dwindling.
“I work for a fine dining restaurant in the Brisbane CBD (and) it’s stressful knowing that you’re going to be doing the same amount of work, but taking home less pay,” she said.
There are also other workers mentioned in that article. These workers are entitled to feel that this government has forgotten all about them, that they are collateral damage when it comes to this government's twisted priorities.
With respect to housing affordability, while finance to housing investors has rocketed up by more than 27 per cent over the last 12 months, low- and middle-income Australians are increasingly being locked out of the Australian dream of owning their own home. First home buyers in the market are still at near record lows. While the government continues to talk about housing affordability, there has been little or no real action over the last 12 months. All the while, house price growth in Sydney has been running at 19.2 per cent and in Melbourne at 14.2 per cent. Demographia's 13th annual International Housing Affordability Survey also showed that Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth are in the top 20 least affordable housing markets.
While ordinary Australians are being locked out, the government seems to be using this issue as a way to wage factional wars, with one side considering capital gains tax reform and the other being ideologically opposed to tax increases. One side embraces the silly idea of accessing superannuation to make a deposit and the other side, wisely, tries to rule it out. It is hard to know what the government's housing affordability policy actually is, as it seems to change with every passing day.
The Turnbull government has turned a blind eye to the issues of inequality facing our nation. Whether it is cuts to penalty rates or housing affordability, the Turnbull government has failed low- and middle-income Australians.
I rise to speak on the matter of public importance. It is always good to come in here and clear the sinuses, to get a lecture from the Australian Labor Party on how to manage the economy of this country. These are people, almost to the last person—these shop stewards and trade union delegates—who made their way into this place not on merit, not on demonstrating their knowledge of how to run a business or how to make a contribution to an economy but, rather, they were just like marbles with numbers on them coming out the end of a garden hose. 'Who's next?' they say when a vacancy comes up.
Honestly, if you put your hand in your pocket and found a 10-pound note you would have someone else's pants on because you have devoted your life, you have created a skills base, where you wait for real people to develop economies and businesses. You stand there, almost at the gate of the factory, waiting to prey upon them. You do not want the employers to have any advantage. You represent a trade union movement that, quite corruptly, goes and gets commissions, most of it for the benefit of the trade union.
Senator O'Neill, on a point of order.
Madam Acting Deputy President, I am not sure whether the senator was referring to you. I doubt he would have been referring to any particular person sitting on this side; nonetheless, he should refer his remarks through the chair.
Senator O'Sullivan, I would remind you to make all your comments through the chair.
Let me clear it up for the senator. It is a very communistic approach. My remarks can be shared, equally, amongst you all. If one of you wants to take a bigger load than the others you just put your hand up and let me know. The fact of the matter is, it offends me when I come in here and hear members of the Australian Labor Party talk about the economy.
If only the arrow were black and went up instead of red and going down. You would be heroes. You took a balanced budget left by Prime Minister Howard that had $60 billion in reserve and zero debt. That is a statement you will never hear again in your lifetime, Senator Katter—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—even if you live to be 115. You left a debt of $300 billion behind. You borrowed three hundred thousand million dollars and frittered it away. You want to talk about middle-income Australians losing out, but all they got out of your government—some of them, not all of them—was some pink batts up in the ceiling. They got nothing else whatsoever.
For you to come in here and tell us how to run an economy—you wouldn't have a clue! None of you have ever employed anyone, except when you got the payroll out of some consolidated revenue of someone else's money, like a trade union movement. That is the only time you have ever employed anyone. You have never lain awake—
Senator O'Neill, do you have a point of order?
Yes. The honourable senator continues to ignore the reality that he should be making his comments to the chair. I would like to make it a debating point but I will not.
I thank you for that, Senator O'Neill. Senator O'Sullivan, I would remind you to make your remarks through the chair.
Madam Acting Deputy President, you know when you're on the money when every minute or so one of them bobs up with some nonsense sort of an interjection to stop you getting your flow on. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is not one of these people here who has ever lain at home at night worrying about their business mortgage, worrying about how they are going to employ someone. This is reflected in their economic management skills.
They have not even had the basic experience of small business to know things like tax cuts. Those tax cuts that will go to these businesses—I think it is under $10 million—are going to be reinvested. Every cent of that will be reinvested by employing more people or giving better employment services to those who are already employed, giving them confidence that their jobs are going to continue because their bosses are productive. The only way governments can create revenue is to borrow more money, increase taxes and charges or reduce services. There is no other pathway. The only way out of this Labor quagmire that you left us, this $300 billion debt, is for business men and women out there to hit their straps and generate incomes, creating good profits on which to pay their fair share of taxation. That is the only way out of this quagmire—creating businesses that will employ more people.
Let me talk about some of the imposts on businesses. Let me tell you about the impact the Labor Party still has today. They send out these gorillas, knuckles dragging on the floor, to corruptly stand over businesses to take money. Some of them spend it on prostitutes and boats for themselves, others put extensions on their own homes. These are trade union delegates, these are the mates of the Australian Labor Party, these are the people who fund this political franchise, over here, of nearly $200 million. You know that, don't you, Senator Williams? You only mentioned it a bit earlier. It was $198 million, I think. You were a student of it.
You have taken $198 million off these corrupt individuals in this organised crime unit so that you can continue to come here and protect them—not only to protect them but to create an environment where they can continue to attack—
Senator O'Neill, do you have another point of order?
It will not surprise you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I need to make the same point of order. I do draw your attention to the rather outrageous claims that the senator is now making and attributing to people here.
There are two issues there. The second issue is a debating point. I have been listening very carefully to Senator O'Sullivan. You were a bit slow to your feet, and I did let it go, because I took it as a rhetorical question to another senator, rather than a direct issue. So there is no point of order.
Let me be more specific. The CFMEU, which I think is accepted by everybody to be an organised criminal outfit, with 114 of them before the courts for serious criminal offences in relation to—
Senator O'Neill, another point of order?
That is an outrageous accusation to make to an entire organisation. It is one thing to correctly describe people who have broken the law and are before the law, but that is just way too far.
I will take that again as a debating point.
The senator should take care with—
Senator O'Sullivan, I will just remind you to take care with your language, but that was a debating point, not a point of order.
I compliment Senator O'Neill. She is definitely earning her donations from the trade union movement today. Where does that money come from? You have to understand that a large part of that, as disclosed by the commission, has come from industry. It has come from businesses. It has been corruptly obtained. We have heard of these secret commissions. This is money that would otherwise be spent by that company in the operation of its enterprise, in the employment of people and in the provision of services. But no. So what happens? Do you on the other side understand what trickle-down economics is? I doubt that you do, but here is what happens. Those are cost outlays that those companies have to meet, despite the fact that it is a corrupt payment. Where does it go? You want to talk about housing affordability? I will tell you what it does. It trickles down onto the job site. It trickles all the way down onto the job site, because these enterprises still want to make a profit for themselves. They still want to remain viable.
So you have got this trade union movement up one end, ripping the heart out of industry—some estimates suggest that the productivity losses are in double digits, that the additional costs, particularly in commercial construction, are in double digits. That is money that would remain in the cycle. When you make a profit in business—and fortunately I know a thing or two about that—you reinvest it in yourself. You start off with five employees. When you are more profitable, you grow your business. Most people, at least, grow their business; they are ambitious to grow their business. You employ 10 people. You employ 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 people. Every cost that you have impacts on the viability of your business and impacts on your ability to employ people. So every red cent stolen or corruptly taken by the trade union movement, particularly in the construction industry, particularly the CFMEU—one of your biggest donors and a donor of our friends over there; they are sitting quietly but perhaps that might knock them out of their slumber and they might have something to say—is money that comes directly out of industry and commerce in this country. That is why, to the extent that there is any impact on low- and middle-income Australians, it is because it has been ripped out by these inefficiencies created by the trade union movement.
What a joke!
No. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President: I saw you get up, Senator Ketter, trying to name places. You did not even pronounce some of them properly, because—let us get down to the facts now—every Labor senator in Queensland is based in Brisbane or the Gold Coast. That is where they are. They have never seen a kangaroo. They have never dodged a kangaroo. They are nowhere to be seen in the bush. There is a reason for that: there are no votes for them up in the bush. I can tell you that now. What we have got is—
Senator McAllister interjecting—
No. These are the impacts. What you are trying to do is impact on businesses—in my case, out in provincial Queensland, in the bush. We saw you last week. I have got to tell you I found it incredible to sit over here and look at the Australian Labor Party sit over there and vote with their coalition partner, the Greens, to try and bring jobs in the black coal industry to an end. These are your workers. These are the people that you built the Australian Labor Party on—coalminers. There are 14,000 jobs already gone in Central Queensland, in the Bowen and Surat basins, and you sat over there to bring that to an end. There are thousands of businesses, Senator Ketter, that will not remember you for your kind words today as you talked about the impacts in those communities and tried to blame them on the government. They will remember you for your vote a week ago, when you voted to get rid of their remaining jobs in the black coal industry. That is what they will remember you for. And, just in case they nod off and forget, I will be there to remind them at every single opportunity. The Australian Labor Party as we currently know it is no longer the Labor Party of the sixties and the seventies or indeed before that, since their formation. You are no longer the party of the workers. To come in here and talk about the economy in the form that you have demonstrates to them that you are ignorant of economic issues. You made this problem. You created this problem that we have in the current environment.
My story is the NDIS. I think that all governments should be ashamed of themselves for not having introduced a national disability insurance scheme 40, 50 or 60 years ago. It should have been enshrined in the Constitution almost. And I give full credit to the Australian Labor Party for leading the way in relation to the introduction of that. That is something that you can be very proud of. But you know what? You forgot to leave any money in the piggy bank. You forgot to leave one cent in there to fund it in the forward estimates, and you have done that before. Keating did that. He took us to 19 per cent. Gough Whitlam spent like a drunken sailor. This is your history. This is your legacy on the question of the economy.
So, if I seem a bit testy, it is because for you to get up and start to lecture us on what low- and middle-income Australians have, because of some economic decision of this government, is a little bit rich. These people have been better off under coalition governments forever. They rely on us to come in and fix the debt. Well, we are having to struggle this time, because you did not just leave a debt. You left the piggy banks, and, when we lined them up and gave them a rattle, what did we hear, Senator Williams? We heard nothing, because they were empty. I got excited at first; I thought they might have been full of banknotes and so not make any noise. But no. We pulled the plug out, put the old looking glass up there under the belly of the pig, and it was fully empty—just like your ability to conduct and manage an economy. You are an empty vessel. I will not be lectured by you in this place. I will not be lectured by you about what we need to do to the economy. I will not have you tell us that low- and middle-income Australians are worse off under this government, after you left a massive, massive Bankcard debt that we cannot crawl over.
Senator McAllister interjecting—
No, it is good to see you come alive. I will bet you this: in every contribution that the Labor Party makes today, I bet they will not acknowledge the fact that they left a $300 billion debt, Senator Williams. I will bet you a carton of anything you drink, and there will be a carton for you too if you get up and tell the truth—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—and let Australians know what they already know: what a terrible state you left the financial affairs of this country in. I will give you a carton of beer, or a carton of something else; you might be a soft drinker.
Senator Williams interjecting—
Sorry?
Mine is Guinness.
There we go—Guinness. We will get you some Guinness.
I want to close simply by saying it is a bit rich and hypocritical. You people: if you have a couple of minutes, pop round to my office, and I will give you some 101 on economic management.
Well, God help those on low and middle incomes in Australia if they are relying on the coalition to look after them. That is all I can say, Senator O'Sullivan—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—because there is absolutely no doubt that low- and middle-income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government.
Let's look at the social security amendment legislation that went through this place last week, where they froze indexation on family tax benefit payment. Low- and middle-income families will clearly lose out on payments. Let's look at the freezing of the income-free area on Newstart, which means low-income Australians will have less money in their pockets over the next couple of years as that freeze starts to take effect. Let's look at what the government has been doing with the Centrelink autodebt process, where low- and middle-income Australians, but particularly low-income Australians, have been hit so hard with this incorrect, flawed process. The government could care less, quite frankly, about the impact of the incorrect debt notices that have been going out so heartlessly to Australians—20,000 Australians at a time through that process. What does the government say? 'It's working. We're going to pursue this.' Very wealthy Australians get to negotiate their million-dollar debts with the tax office. What do the government do to low- and middle-income Australians? They send around the debt collectors. In some instances, when it first started, the first thing some people knew about it was when they had the debt collectors knock at the door, because apparently the government could not find their address to send them the debt notices.
Then, of course, we go back to when the coalition first came in, to that horror budget. Who can forget Tony Abbott's first horror budget, where they clearly purposely, cruelly, unfairly targeted low-income Australians? Who can forget that cruel attempt to kick young people off income support for six months? Then they clearly saw that Australians did not support that and overwhelmingly rejected it. But so intent are they on still trying to save money on young people that they are now still attempting to do so, because there is still a bill on the books to kick young people off income support for an extra four weeks—in other words, kicking them off for five weeks. This ignores all the evidence that shows that living in poverty is a barrier to finding employment but, more importantly, that the jobs just are not there.
They keep having a bash. They keep trying to demonise those on Newstart or income support, saying they cannot find employment. They cannot find employment because the jobs are not there, but the value of Newstart is going down when we know that the value of youth allowance is going down, and we will make young people live on thin air for four weeks. But do not worry. They actually know that that is going to have an impact, because they are going to put a little bit of extra money, $8 million, into emergency relief. So people have to then go to emergency relief and ask for enough money to be able to eat that night. That is not good for low- and middle-income Australians, and it is not a good start for young people trying to find jobs. What do you think it does to their mental health and their self-esteem, let alone their physical health?
Inequality in this country is rising—wealth inequality and income inequality. The government clearly, in every budget, tries every time to take money off the most vulnerable members of our community. Let's look at the omnibus bill. That still has some horror measures in it. The government will still keep pursuing those cuts, we are told.
Then, of course, there are issues around penalty rates. Who do you think that is going to hit? Young people, the same people that they are telling to go and get a job. Once they get a job, we are actually going to make sure you have less money in your pocket, because we are going to cut penalty rates. That is, of course, assuming that people have been able to find housing and are not homeless. This government fails low- and middle-income Australians.
In rising to speak to Senator Gallagher's matter of public importance, I certainly agree with the matter of public importance that is before us. The way the government is attacking low- and middle-income Australians is a disgrace, and it is especially being felt in my home state of WA, which now has the highest rate of unemployment in the nation. What that means is that there are more people being forced to survive on the government's measly Newstart payments and many more young people struggling under the waiting periods that Senator Siewert, for example, outlined.
We have now seen for a long time this government, and its previous iteration under Tony Abbott, sell out low- and middle-income Australians. We have seen the government taking away the rights of workers, cutting education funding, trying to undermine Medicare and cutting family assistance payments. We have seen this systematic attack. Time and time again, we have seen the government sell out the people who need their support the most—not the big end of town. They still have $50 billion worth of tax cuts on the table. This is a government that does not care about low- and middle-income workers, that does not care about the ordinary mums and dads across the country who are trying to make ends meet. Those on the other side are fighting for the interests of their friends in big business by promising them big tax cuts and supporting pay cuts for the lowest paid workers in our nation.
I implore those on the other side and on the crossbench to support Labor's legislation to protect penalty rates from being cut by the Fair Work Commission. However, those opposite have said they support the Fair Work Commission's decision. That can mean only one thing: they are directly supporting the pay cuts for retail and hospitality workers. This decision will mean not only that low- and middle-income Australians will lose out but also that women will disproportionately lose out too. Women are already the most affected by marginal work arrangements, shiftwork and multiple employers. That is the working arrangement of many women in Australia, and attacks on penalty rates will affect them disproportionately.
A good example is a woman named Tanya, who, in the Save our penalty rates campaign, said: 'If my pay is cut I'll struggle to survive, even eat. I won't be able to buy clothes, shoes, toothpaste and hair spray. I won't be able to treat the grandkids on birthdays or at Christmas. If something happens to the car, I won't be able to afford it.' What we have is a government that is standing by and letting it happen. It means there are more and more workers at risk of similar decisions in other industries. Other workers, not just retail and hospitality workers, are now at risk of having their rates cut with this dangerous precedent.
Last year we saw the government pass its notorious ABCC legislation. That legislation is a part of this government's ongoing agenda to attack the union movement to undermine the capacity of ordinary working Australians to protect their pay and conditions. That legislation sought to create criminal penalties for actions that are not criminal—a direct attack on working people in this country and their right to defend their wages and conditions.
We saw that just last week for vulnerable children, with the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill, which disproportionately impacts lower income earners, who are losing out under the government's package. That package made low-income families have limited access to early childhood education. It is an absolute disgrace, and, I think, immoral to turn our focus away from the children who we need to stand up for and fight for the most. It is just more evidence for the families that Malcom Turnbull is leaving behind. A good way of illustrating this is that the government's new 12-hour safety net for single-income families is not equal to the two days support and care that the minister claimed. That is an attack on our nation's most vulnerable children. We saw within that legislation a complicated activity test that removes the entitlement of all children to that two days care. That, in my view, is appalling. The legislation, as a whole, demonstrates how little regard the coalition has for the sector and for the vulnerable families that are affected by these cuts.
I want to comment briefly on the other cuts that the government has made recently to 204,000 Australians on the lowest incomes with cuts to Newstart and parenting payment. We have seen waiting periods for access to parenting payment introduced, which is an appalling thing to do to a family in crisis. We have seen cuts to the family tax benefit parts A and B. These cuts are to people who are already on very low incomes. Freezing the threshold makes their incomes completely unsustainable in terms of keeping up with the rest of the economy. It is already very difficult to survive on these very low incomes.
We have also seen an attack on Medicare. We have seen low- and middle-income families deal with higher medical costs through the six-year Medicare fees. It is forcing bulk-billing to disappear and forcing up the healthcare costs of Australians. In the period July to September, bulk-billing rates for non-referred GP attendances tumbled by some 0.2 per cent in my home state of WA and by up to 2.4 per cent nationally. This is burdensome for Australian families. Zero point two per cent might seem small, but that is the equivalent of 6,000 GP visits in the state of WA that were not bulk-billed last quarter that would have been previously bulk-billed and 167,000 GP visits nationally.
We have seen a government that does not want to reveal that if low- and middle- income families go to visit the GP they will get a nasty surprise. This is coming from a Prime Minister who promised that no Australian would pay more to visit the doctor. That was utterly false. With the robo-debt we have also seen a farce, with false debt notices going out to people who have done all their due diligence in telling Centrelink their income over time. False debt notices have gone out to people who have declared every bit of their income to Centrelink and were absolutely entitled to that money, but have been put through the wringer by the government's robo-debt process. It really reeks, to my mind, of the government systematically trying to rip money out of the poorest households in our country.
One thing I do know for sure is that Australians will see through the government's attacks. Less than three weeks ago, voters in my home state of WA voted out a Liberal government that was arrogant and out of touch, that was not in touch with the needs of low- and middle-income Western Australians. They voted for jobs, for solutions to unemployment, for investment in better public health, for investment in schools and transport and for policies that focus on the needs of real people. The government of this nation must stand up and do what is right for ordinary Australians but, sadly, I do not think it will. I can tell you, though, the Australian Labor Party certainly will.
I am also pleased to make a contribution to this matter of public importance debate this afternoon in the Senate. What Labor senators, and I suspect Australian Greens senators, are trying to do is to: undermine the public and community confidence in the government's plan for families, whether they be low- or middle-income families; undermine the community's confidence in the government's commitment to budget repair; undermine the community's confidence in the government's very, very clear plan to put the country on a more sustainable footing, not just over the next few months but also into future years.
It has to be recognised that there is a very real tension in our country at the moment, and that tension exists fundamentally around the issue of budget repair. There can be no denying that in this country the issue of budget repair has to be our most important priority. If it is not our priority then we are doing a disservice not just to ourselves and not just to the next generation, we are doing a disservice to all future generations of Australians. Tardy budget management, budgets that deliver debt and deficit do not just diminish the capacity of this generation, they also diminish the capacity of every future generation. You cannot have a discussion about the future of Australian children without also having a discussion about the importance of budget repair.
Of course the tension arises because in order to fix the budget there are two very clear choices for governments. One of those choices is to increase taxes. For some people in the Senate, indeed, for some people in the broader community, the idea of taxing people more has huge attractions. But I would argue that addressing budget repair by increasing taxes undermines the opportunity for low- and middle-income families to get ahead. Increasing taxes will slow economic growth and it will make job opportunities diminish in the economy. That cannot be a good outcome for any family, whether they be a low-income family, a middle-income family or, indeed, a wealthier Australian family.
The other option, and I happily put myself on the austerity side of the ledger, is to tackle the issue of government spending. The simple fact of the matter for me, and I am sure for other coalition senators, and I hope for others on this side of the chamber, is that the government cannot continue to spend at the rate it is spending. That brings us to the issue of the social services budget. It accounts for such a large part of our budget outlay, and, importantly, many of those measures—I think the figure might be in excess of 80 per cent—are legislated, which means that the parliament must cast a judgement over the suitability of those social service arrangements.
In recent days, indeed over the recent week, much of that tension has focused itself on two issues: the issue of penalty rates reform—I have supported and I continue to support penalty rate reform—and the issue of childcare reform. I will come to those two issues in a brief moment. Of course what we know about inequality in the Australian community, inequality between Australian families, is that at its heart it is joblessness that drives that inequality. That is why the government's focus is clearly on the issue of job creation and economic growth. So to suggest that we are not doing anything around the issue of supporting low- and middle-income families is blatantly wrong. We have a clear commitment to addressing inequality in our community, because we believe that at the heart of inequality is the issue of joblessness. So when you look at what is the government doing, how is the government attempting to tackle the issue of joblessness, then the record is strong and it is clear. The government is seeking to support higher wages and the creation of new jobs by lowering the tax rate for all businesses over the next 10 years, starting with small business.
The government's childcare packages, happily passed by this Senate last week, will support around one million families who rely on child care to go out and work, providing the highest rate of subsidy to those with the lowest incomes. It is interesting that in the childcare debate, which I will come to in a moment, a key point that has been missing is what it does for female participation in the workforce. In order to drive greater economic growth, higher levels of productivity in the Australian economy, the government, the community, must address the issue of female workplace participation. That is an important element, and often an element much neglected in the government's childcare package.
Further than that, the government is investing almost $840 million in a youth employment package that would deliberately seek to increase the employment of vulnerable young people under 25 years of age. None of us in this place would find the level of youth unemployment in our country acceptable. The government is investing in education, providing $73.6 billion over the next four years, hoping to set our children up for future prosperity. In addition, the government is committed to ensuring that we get taxpayer support to those who need it most, and encouraging those who can work to work, and to use their own means to support themselves where possible.
I will come briefly to the issue of the childcare package, and then move to the issue of the penalty rate debate. It is important to recognise that the childcare reforms that were passed by this Senate do a number of things. They put downward pressure on incessant childcare fee increases through an hourly rate cap. They abolish the $7½ thousand childcare rebate cap to ensure that low- and middle-income families are not limited by a cap on the amount of child care they can access. Importantly, they introduce new compliance powers to further strengthen the government's efforts to clamp down on fraud, and they provide a billion-dollar childcare safety net for the most vulnerable children and slash red tape so that services can be more flexible in the hours that they are available to families. Importantly—to those senators who represent states with large rural and regional communities—the package provides rural, regional and remote childcare services with the support of funding streams like the childcare subsidy, the additional childcare subsidy and the community childcare fund. Together, these have the potential to provide much more funding for important childcare services across rural and regional communities.
It is important to see the government's reform efforts, whether they be penalty rate reform or in the area of childcare reform, as supporting increased participation in the workforce by allowing people and giving people the opportunity to find jobs, because it is in finding jobs that people can have the best way of addressing inequality in our community but also the best opportunity to support their own families. Let me just demonstrate how important the childcare reforms are by drawing out a number of cameos that the Minister for Education and Training, in this case the minister responsible for the childcare package, Simon Birmingham, talked about in his contribution to the Senate last week. I will use three cameos. I will use a cameo of a family on $50,000, a cameo of a family on $80,000 and finally a cameo of a family on $94,000.
In the case of a family on $50,000 with both parents working, with two children under the age of six in long day care for two days a week at $100 a day, that family will be $2,197 better off as a result of the government's childcare package. There is no way you can argue that the government is hurting low- and middle-income families when a family on $50,000 will have a benefit of $2,197 as a result of the government's childcare package.
Look at another modest family income of $80,000 with both parents working, with two children under the age of six, again, in long day care for three days a week at $100 a day. They will be $3,424 better off. Again, you just cannot argue with a straight face that the government's childcare reforms are not benefiting low- and middle-income families.
Finally, before I move to the issue of penalty rate reform, a family on $94,000 with both parents working, with two children under the age of six in long day care for three days a week at $100 a day, will be $2,657 better off a year. So it does not withstand scrutiny that the government's efforts to support female participation in the workforce and to support Australian families with its childcare reforms are somehow dudding low-income and middle-income families in our country.
I just want to turn to the issue of penalty rate reform. This, I think, is a classic example of where the rhetoric and the sound and fury of the Labor Party and some other senators on this issue just do not stack up to reason. What we have in our country without penalty rate reform, what we have in our country without the decision of a few weeks ago of the independent Fair Work Commission, is a very unlevel playing field between small businesses and big business. We know small businesses are run predominantly by families, and we know that many women are managing those small businesses and taking those small businesses' risks. We have an unlevel playing field between that group in the community and big business.
One of the things that motivated me to join the Liberal Party over 30 years ago—30 years ago last month—was the realisation when I watched the Western Australian Labor Party in the 1980s that, for some people, having big unions and big business in bed with big government is how they want to run our country. I reject the idea that big unions in bed with big business in bed with big government help ordinary families. I saw it for myself. I saw my own family not being looked after by the interests of the organised labour movement. In fact, they were dudding low-income families like our own and not supporting middle-income families but supporting the big end of town, and that is shameful.
The comparison between what is available to big business at the expense of small business in the absence of penalty rate reform is illuminating. I will give you a couple of examples. For example, a permanent full-time or part-time staff member working on Sundays at a bed-and-breakfast must be paid $10 an hour more than at a five-star hotel. A family chicken shop must pay $8 an hour more than KFC. A family-owned takeaway must pay $8 an hour more than McDonald's. A family greengrocer must pay $5 an hour more than Woolworths. (Time expired)
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, it gives me great delight to share some really wonderful news for the people of Queensland and Australia and indeed for all low- and middle-income families. President Trump has declared that 'the war on coal' is over. This goes on to say:
President Trump on Tuesday signed a far-reaching executive order that dismantles many of the pillars—
Order! Senator Roberts, resume your seat. Senator Polley, on a point of order?
Yes. I would just ask you to draw the senator back to the issue that we are debating. We are not talking about US politics or about Donald Trump.
Senator Roberts has only just started his contribution, and I think he has made a link at the moment. We will wait and see.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Your perceptiveness is admired and appreciated. You have it correct. President Trump said that he is:
… ending the theft of American prosperity, and rebuilding our beloved country.
We actually agree with the Labor Party that low- and middle-income Australians are continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government. The Turnbull government is pushing a 28 per cent renewable energy target, and that has helped destroy South Australia. The Labor Party is pushing a 50 per cent renewable energy target countrywide, and that will destroy Australia. But the Greens, the people who think that money comes out of the sky, want a 90 per cent renewable energy target, and that is going to cost every low- and middle-income earner amazing amounts of money. It will destroy this country and destroy jobs. What is more, energy prices are rising, and rising rapidly, and energy is now important in every family's life. Every family's cost of living is affected directly and indirectly as rising energy costs cascade through the economy. It is a highly regressive tax on low- and middle-income earners.
Labor actually wants to apply a carbon dioxide tax, an emissions trading scheme, which is yet another highly regressive impost on low- and middle-income earners. What is more, it is an open-ended, upward-ratcheting tax that is designed to give money to the United Nations. We have a double taxation agreement that was signed by the Liberal Party in 1953. I calculate that we have had—three, 13, six—22 years of Labor government since then, and not one of those Labor governments has even mentioned the double taxation agreement that is ripping off Australians. Only our party have done that, and we are making moves to end that double taxation— (Time expired)
Senator Dastyari, on a point of order?
I just want check for future reference: if the Senate were to choose to do so—I am not saying we would—by leave we can give Senator Roberts 20 more minutes whenever we want, can't we!
That is not a point of order.
I rise to speak about all the ways that this government has undermined low- and middle-income Australians. This government only looks after the big end of town. We heard it from Senator Smith in his contribution. He does not like big unions, big business and big government being in bed with one another. But it is all right for those on that side to give big business $50 billion worth of tax cuts. That is all right!
Let me put on the record just a few facts about what the Turnbull government have done to Australian families. They have been slicing and dicing household budgets with cuts to family payments, Medicare, health and education. They have supported cutting the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians who already live from pay cheque to pay cheque. That is the reality. When people who work in hospitality and retail come to you, if they ring your office or they talk to you in the street, they are in tears because they do not know how they are going to be able to support their children at school to give them the same opportunities as their classmates. But that is all right, according to those on the other side—because that is what they believe in. We know that they have consistently undermined and cut the education system in this country.
We had another contribution from Senator Smith, who actually surprised me when he talked about the new childcare package, because one in three families are going to be worse off. I also would have thought that as a Western Australian senator he might have had a bit of interest in what is happening to people who live in regional Australia. Because Western Australia is so vast, there are regional and rural areas, and there are also remote areas. The cuts the government have made in regional Australia have been to services that were there providing early education for the children of our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. But, no, that is all right! As long as no-one else is in bed with the big end of town, then that is all right!
Senator Smith also touched on penalty rates. Now, we know that the cut to penalty rates is going to have an enormous impact on those who depend on penalty rates to make their budget stretch as far as it can. They do not use their penalty rates for luxury items; that is just not the way real people live. People depend on those penalty rates. We know that families rely on them to pay their electricity bill and take care of the kids' excursions so they can go with their classmates. All of these things that this government has done have been about one thing, and that is making sure that people who are low-income workers, people who rely on benefits, are kept down where they belong, because that is in their DNA. That is how reckless this government is. Imagine if you suddenly got a pay cut and you knew it would take you 17 years to get back to your current wage. How would you feel? Well, 700,000 Australians, 40,000 of them from my home state of Tasmania, are facing those very cuts to penalty rates.
That is without the extension that we know is going to incorporate other sectors—and what are they? They are predominantly industries in which low-paid women are working. And why are they doing that? They are working to try and get ahead to give their kids opportunities and to support their families so that they can make a contribution to the economy. And what they do because they have such low wages? They expend all their money. They do not have huge bank accounts. They do not have investment properties. They do not have shares. What they have is some self-respect. They have self-respect because they can send their children on school excursions and they are able to meet their bills. They do not go away on holiday. They do not go out to luxurious restaurants. They do not go on overseas trips. All they are trying to do is get by, each and every day. That is the reality.
If you have never, ever been in those circumstances, then it is very hard to understand—and I give you that. So I can understand why the Prime Minister does not have any empathy for these people. It is because he has never had to do it. But when you have to do it day in, day out, it is really hard, and it is very hard as a parent to say to your children, 'No, you cannot go to the cinema, because I just cannot afford it,' or, 'No, we cannot go to the Gold Coast, because we cannot afford it.' That is very difficult for parents. It is very, very difficult. (Time expired)
It takes a lot of gall for Labor to propose this debate about low- and middle-income Australians continuing to lose out under the Turnbull government, because last Thursday Labor voted against reducing childcare subsidies for family with incomes between $200,000 and $350,000. Labor was even reluctant to support the removal of childcare subsidies for families with incomes over $350,000. It was Senator Hinch and me who backed the Turnbull government into a corner to support the removal of high-income subsidies.
While Labor says it cares about low- and middle-income Australians, on Thursday it demonstrated that it cares more about high-income Australians continuing to get subsidies funded by low- and middle-income Australians. By fighting for minimum wages and mandatory penalty rates, Labor is keeping our unemployment queues long and the very poorest Australians poor. That the foremost expert in Australia on the job destroying effects of minimum wages is none other than the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Professor Andrew Leigh, does not seem to dissuade Labor one iota.
Finally, Labor is the defender in chief of the renewable energy target and wants to make 50 per cent of our energy renewable. This results in the poorest Australians being asked to decide whether they want air conditioning in summer, heating in winter or food. They will never be able to afford all three. While Labor pretends to care about everyday Australians, it continually panders to those high-income voters who pretend to be middle class. The light on the hill is out.
On behalf of the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present report No. 3 of 2017 Human rights scrutiny report.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 3 of 2017.
In accordance with the committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 the committee examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
A key purpose of the scrutiny report is to provide parliament with credible technical analysis about the human rights implications of legislation. The report is therefore a technical examination and does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures.
The committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation. It is served by an external legal adviser to the committee and secretariat staff.
Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports. Like all parliamentarians, committee members are free to engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party, conscience, belief or outlook. Scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation.
Eleven new bills are assessed in this scrutiny report as not raising human rights concerns. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to five bills and legislative instruments.
I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's work.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 3 of 2017 to the Senate.
On behalf of the chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 4 of 2017.
Ordered that the report be printed.
On behalf of the chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I present the report on Scrutiny DigestNo. 4 of 2017, dated 29 March 2017.
Ordered that the report be printed.
On behalf of the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report on Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I present the report of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee on closures of electricity generators, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This references committee and the inquiry has been going for some time. We had an interim report going into the double dissolution mid last year. We finally concluded what has been a very long series of travelling around the country and a series of meetings on a very important subject.
This committee has made a series of strong recommendations. I have yet to see the details of dissenting reports by the government and by Labor, but I will generally express that I am disappointed that the committee was unable to have a strong recommendation and have cross-party support to that recommendation, because this issue is incredibly important. This is not just about how we transition to a clean energy future and meet our COP 21, our global, targets under Paris. This is also about how we as a country provide certainty for coal communities—communities around coal fired power stations and communities around coal mines.
Chairing this committee in its final stages, there was very clear evidence to me both in New South Wales and in Western Australia—and I reviewed the Hansard transcripts from other inquiries—from stakeholders, including people living in the community. For example, we heard from community organisers in Collie in Western Australia, unions who represent workers and local government who rely on the businesses in their area. There was a unanimous call for politicians to work together to provide a plan, to provide certainty and to provide leadership for their communities. That is what they wanted. We asked them the questions directly. Even when they answered them, the government senators, who clearly did not want a transition plan, continued to ask the same questions just to be sure: 'Are you sure you want to plan for transition? Are you sure you do not want your coal mines and coal fired power stations to continue into the future?' The evidence I heard was very clear. These stakeholders said, 'We accept it's inevitable, under climate change and a world that is moving to reduce emissions, that the writing is on the wall for coal fired power stations in this country. We need to move to other forms of base load power.'
In the final stages of the committee hearings, the government introduced the concept of clean coal into the inquiry. A number of questions were asked of expert witnesses, including engineers who have worked on coal fired power stations, and I believe the committee heard very clear evidence that it was not viable. It was not commercially viable and it was not viable from a productivity point of view. We spoke to the finance experts, and there was no-one out there lining up to finance a coal fired power station in this country—except, as we learnt at Senate estimates a couple of weeks ago, Mr Clive Palmer, who put in a rogue bid to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to finance a clean-coal power station.
I want to reiterate the point that the communities who presented to this inquiry, who came to meet with the senators, presented the very clear evidence that they wanted politicians to work together and actually have a plan. That is what they asked for. They will look at this report and they will look at the three dissenting reports from three political parties, and they will be gutted that we could not do our job and come together as a polity in this place and provide a plan for transition out of coal fired power stations, a plan that gives workers and the communities that rely on them the certainty that they need. What we have seen instead is short-term political populism and opportunism.
It was clear as daylight to me during the hearings that the strategy of the Liberal-National Party coalition was to talk up clean coal and to talk up a viable future for these coal fired power stations. The strategy was designed to put pressure on One Nation in marginal seats where these coalminers and coal fired power stations are located. For the government, this is a short-term political strategy to head off One Nation at the pass. But what it is going to do is set us back years on going down the road of a just transition around coal fired power in this country—let alone on going down the path of meeting our global targets and the impact of emissions. And of course, very sadly, there is the impact on our environment.
We have seen the new data coming through in recent weeks about the Great Barrier Reef. It is just horrifying to imagine that the biggest living organism in the world is dying. You can say whatever you want about bleeding hearts; it is absolutely appalling that this has happened on our watch. The recommendations in the report of the committee, which I chaired, are very strong. They are very strong on providing certainty for the communities that rely on coal fired power stations now, and they are very certain about how to get us to a point where we can invest more heavily in renewables.
I am going to briefly run through some of the key recommendations. The first recommendation is:
… that the Australian Government adopt a comprehensive energy transition plan, including reform of the National Electricity Market rules.
I think just about everyone we heard from was unambiguously asking for that.
Recommendation 2 is:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with industry, community, union and other stakeholders, develop a mechanism for the orderly retirement of coal fired power stations to be presented to the COAG Energy Council.
Once again, go back and check the Hansard. It is what we were asked to do by the community.
Recommendation 3 is:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through representation on the COAG Energy Council, put in place a pollution reduction objective consistent with Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement in the National Electricity Objectives.
Recommendation 4 is:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an energy transition authority—
That was also in the interim recommendations going into the double-dissolution—
with sufficient powers and resources to plan and coordinate the transition in the energy sector, including a Just Transition for workers and communities.
That was also a key recommendation from nearly every stakeholder that we met with.
Recommendation 5 covers air pollution and the evidence that the committee heard around existing coal fired power stations and the health impacts of those. This includes setting up a national pollution inventory. We also heard about the limitations of state environmental protection authorities that monitor these things.
Recommendation 6 is:
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and state energy ministers should undertake a national audit of likely rehabilitation costs …
We heard about the massive blow-out in expected costs in rehabilitating the Hazelwood power station. Recommendation 6 continues:
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and state energy ministers should also work to develop a common approach to setting rehabilitation bonds to ensure that rehabilitation costs are properly provisioned for.
We heard evidence that if coal companies properly set out those liabilities a lot of them would probably be broke, because those liabilities are so significant under a transition plan. So, once again, for industry and for investors, we need a plan that provides certainty around these kinds of things.
Recommendation 7 covers the commitment to expanded renewable energy investment in this country, to provide base load power, including battery powered storage and changes to the grid.
Recommendation 8 is:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to not provide any direct funding, subsidies or other support for the construction of new coal fired power stations in Australia.
That is absolutely critical if we are going to get on and tackle global warming.
Recommendation 9, the last recommendation, is:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government reverse its ideological opposition to the introduction of a scheme for managing the transition in the electricity sector such as an Emissions Intensity Scheme or the setting of pollution intensity standards and commit to considering fairly all policy options presented by the forthcoming final report of the Finkel Review.
The Finkel review of course is going to be very important as an overarching review in relation to this committee report.
Let me finish by saying this. This was a very important inquiry, which Labor and the Greens initiated. It took a long time to get to this point. We have a series of very important recommendations from the committee. I look forward to reading Labor's dissenting report. But let me say this: if Labor are not going down the road of providing a just transition plan and giving certainty to workers and communities, and of course meeting global emissions targets, I will be bitterly disappointed, and not just as a senator. I think communities in this country who expect politicians to stand up and work together and get this done will be bitterly disappointed. Let's be totally frank about this: we will have let these people down if we cannot get a plan to transition out of coal fired power stations. (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of the report that was raised by Senator Whish-Wilson. I do hope that Senator Whish-Wilson has the opportunity to read Labor's contribution to the report. I think you will find many areas which you will agree with. I want to take a moment to commend the work of the secretariat of the environment committee, who have been outstanding. I also want to acknowledge the work that Senator Whish-Wilson has done in this area. I know it is a matter he is very passionate about—as are many Labor and conservative senators, I might add. This is a report that demonstrates a diversity of views, and it also demonstrates the Senate at its best. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Red Tape, titled Effect of red tape on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
The committee, which I chaired, heard extensive evidence confirming that red tape is death by a thousand cuts. Each individual regulation or piece of red tape can seem quite simple—it is just one extra form or one extra requirement—but it adds up to a substantial burden over time. The committee learnt that across Australia there are no less than 62 different types of licences and 24 different types of permits for businesses to acquire if they want to serve alcohol.
We learnt that in New South Wales, after certain hours, small bars cannot serve a classic martini or a negroni, and premium whiskey costing up to $100 a nip cannot be served without the addition of a mixer. Whiskey connoisseurs view this as the equivalent of blasphemy. It certainly serves no public benefit. We learnt that a family business operating 18 liquor stores across New South Wales, with no recorded infractions, is required to close at 10 pm and pays 140 per cent more in fees than a large-capacity nightclub venue in the Sydney CBD precinct that operates until 3 am. The committee also learnt that in a typical Queensland pub or club, after 1 am, you can order a bottle of wine, which comprises seven standard drinks, or a jug of beer, which comprises about four standard drinks, but not a single serve of whisky on ice, which is one standard drink.
The licences, fees and restrictions mean that businesses are not free to operate, evolve and improve. Some businesses respond by just leaving the industry. Based on this evidence, the committee recommends that the Australian government and COAG first consider reductions in restrictions including allowing packaged alcohol to be sold in convenience stores, petrol stations and supermarkets, and abolishing restrictions on trading hours for liquor stores. To reduce the burden of the remaining regulation, the committee recommends the streamlining and simplifying of liquor licencing systems to reduce the number and types of licences or permits to a minimum viable level and recognition of responsible service of alcohol certification acquired interstate, whether through online or face-to-face training. To avoid a worsening regulatory environment, the committee recommends a shifting of resources away from the creation of new regulation applicable to all and towards the targeted enforcement of existing regulation. And, to address concerns about fees, the committee recommends that liquor licensing fees be based on empirical assessments of risk rather than social perceptions of risk.
The committee also heard that much of the red tape burden in the industry arises from the tax system. In 2016, the OECD reported that Australia was the third-highest alcoholic beverage taxing country among its member countries. This explains why Australian alcohol is often cheaper when purchased overseas. Taxation is not only high but also confusing, thanks to two taxation systems that provide for 16 tax rates and various concessions. This leads to numerous illogical outcomes and great variation in the amount of alcohol tax paid for each standard drink, which can range from $1.06 to $30 per serve of alcohol.
According to the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia a case of a certain type of ginger beer is subject to $21.54 of excise tax, while the same sized case of a similar ginger beer is subject to only $8.70 of wine equalisation tax because it is characterised as 'a fruit or vegetable wine'. This is despite the fact that the ginger beer subject to excise tax is 4.5 per cent alcohol by volume whereas the ginger beer subject to wine equalisation tax is eight per cent alcohol by volume.
MyChoice Australia told the committee that the different rates of tax disproportionately affect small business. Small distillers and brewers face particular discrimination from the tax system not just with respect to the differing tax rates but also with respect to their engagement with the tax office. The Australian Hotels Association said that the different rates of tax do not support harm minimisation. For example, the 'alcopops' tax was encouraging young people to buy large bottles of spirits and 'preload' on them rather than buy measured prepackaged bottles of alcohol.
The committee heard from numerous organisations that the policy objectives for alcohol taxation are not clearly or consistently articulated and that the policy mechanisms have not always been effective. This was remarked upon not just by industry representatives but also by groups such as the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Institute of Public Affairs. As a representative from the IPA rightly pointed out, public policy should be based on an agreed objective so you can create effective policy mechanisms. The reasoning is that, if there are social costs, then there may be a role for government to correct those social costs. However, for alcohol there is no agreement on the costs, and estimates vary by billions of dollars.
Inquiry participants argued that alcohol taxation should target alcohol content rather than the mechanism by which the alcohol is delivered, because all alcohol has the same effects on the human body. It is how much a person drinks and their response to alcohol that matters, not the type of drink in which the alcohol is found. This is in line with the recommendations of the 2010 Henry tax review. This view was supported by the Northern Territory government, which identified a volumetric tax on alcohol as an effective measure to complement its targeted harm minimisation initiatives.
Based on this evidence the committee recommends that the Australian government provide leadership on the issue of alcohol taxation by establishing clear policy objectives for the taxation of alcohol and progress the reform of alcohol taxation, including: introducing a single volumetric tax rate across all alcohol products to be phased in to allow reasonable adjustment; enacting legislative changes to enable monthly settlement of alcohol liability for big businesses and quarterly settlement of alcohol liability for small businesses, with the Australian Taxation Office to be granted discretion to further extend settlement periods based on trading terms; and the Australian Taxation Office moving toward the provision of online services as expeditiously as possible.
The retail liquor industry employs 47,800 people. It supports thousands of small businesses, which annually contribute over $17 billion in sales activity and $5.1 billion in various taxes to government. The industry is overseeing a general trend towards lower alcohol consumption and less binge drinking. The number of people in Australia drinking at levels that place them at lifetime risk of an alcohol-related disease or injury fell by approximately 250,000 in the three years up to 2013. More people are choosing quality over quantity. There are also increasing numbers of people abstaining altogether. This suggests that more Australians are drinking in moderation and that regulations should target those who are at risk rather than the vast majority of responsible drinkers.
As the Distilled Spirits Industry Council told us, the debate on the need for regulation and further action is generally at odds with the facts. The vast majority of Australian drinkers enjoy alcohol in a responsible manner and the sale of alcohol provides the foundation for an ever-increasing range of hospitality businesses across the country. The industry deserves a reduced red tape burden. I encourage anyone who is interested to read the interim findings of the red tape inquiry on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol on the APH website. You will find it instructive.
I want to begin by congratulating Senator Leyonhjelm. I had the opportunity to be the deputy chair for this Senate Select Committee on Red Tape inquiry. I have spent the past few years of my time in the Senate participating in inquiries with Senator Leyonhjelm. We have at times dealt with alleged football hooligans and become experts in the use of flares. We spent a day in Newtown. It was falsely sold to me by Senator Leyonhjelm, who said, 'Let's spend the day on marijuana.' It turned out to be an inquiry about law reform. More recently there has been this inquiry on the sale and distribution of alcohol. I know Senator Leyonhjelm is searching for an alleged football hooligan who uses marijuana and likes to drink some alcohol—that I believe would be his ultimate voter!
Joking aside, on a serious note I encourage people to take a little bit of time to read this report. It shows just how ridiculously complex the taxation system has become when it comes to the sale and distribution of alcohol. Obviously this is not an easy problem to fix. Let us not kid ourselves. There is the politics around the WET, the politics around the beer industry and the politics around the spirit industry. If anyone were to design from scratch a taxation system around alcohol, the idea that you would have a different structure for a standard drink of wine compared to a standard drink of beer and a vodka and rum, a vodka and beer or whatever—
You would never do that.
You might not, but I come from the Western suburbs of Sydney.
Now, now, now, Sam.
I'm the westie here.
Senator Smith interjecting—
The Western Australians do not count. According to an email I got from Senator Rod Culleton, there are questions about whether you are part of Australia.
Senator Smith on a point of order.
I find myself in furious agreement with Senator Dastyari so perhaps we could let him continue.
That is not a point of order. Senator Dastyari.
What Senator Leyonhjelm has identified here is the complexity around the taxation arrangements for alcohol. It was quite fascinating. You are looking at a tax regime which can be up to four times more depending on the type of beverage. The fact that a beer is taxed differently to a cider is strange. I want to go to the example Senator Leyonhjelm touched on. In a premium liquor establishment in Sydney—somewhere like the Baxter bar, which I am told serves whisky up to $150—after a certain time at night you cannot have a straight Scotch. It has to be mixed with another drink. Again it is logical. It makes sense. Clearly at some point in time they decided as a policy initiative that they did not want people having excessive shots of alcohol after a certain time, but the practicality of this has become ridiculous.
Again I do not think it is something that is going to be acted on quickly.
The question you have to ask yourself is: considering the egg has been so scrambled, is there a way to reasonably unscramble it and have a taxation system that achieves the goals that it wants to achieve? I think there are two goals, really. There is looking at the harm that alcohol does and can cause and how is revenue raised to counteract the services that have to be provided because of that, while giving people the freedom to be able to participate in leisurely activities? Let's not kid ourselves. Alcohol used for right or wrong—and it is mostly used for right—is certainly part of the Australian identity and Australian culture, and we should not shy away from that. However, that brings with it some very real challenges.
The question that this report raises is: if you have a taxation system that has so fundamentally failed meeting the objectives that it wants to meet, why is it that wine is being taxed differently from spirits? When you have an incredible spirit industry being built out of a place like Tasmania and when you have, in Western Sydney, in Huntingwood, most of the premium drinks being bottled and 250 people in good manufacturing jobs, how do you resolve these challenges? We are all politicians. We can be honest. We all know that the politics around an issue like the WET is very, very difficult.
Senator Leyonhjelm, unfortunately, I do not believe it is something that is going to be resolved easily or quickly, but I do think the report that the committee has done is a step in the right direction, at least in highlighting these problems. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audits, I present a report of the review of the Parliamentary Budget Office and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
As chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the independent review of the Parliamentary Budget Office.
Commissioned by the Committee after the 2016 federal election, the independent review explored the operations of the PBO in the period since its establishment in 2012, with a particular focus on how it could build on its work so far. The Parliamentary Budget Office, in just five years, has established itself as a key parliamentary institution in Australia's democratic practice. The PBO provides independent, high-quality analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals.
The independent review was chaired by Dr Ian Watt AC, former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Barry Anderson, former Deputy Director of the United States Congressional Budget Office, was the other member of the review team.
In their review, Dr Watt and Mr Anderson described the PBO as 'a successful institutional development in Australian governance', which has 'filled a significant gap in Australia's public policy landscape'.
The latest review follows a 2014 Auditor-General audit report into the administration of the Parliamentary Budget Office, which found that the office, after its first two years of operation, was 'well regarded as an authoritative, trusted and independent source of budgetary and fiscal policy analysis'.
I thank Dr Watt and Mr Anderson for their work. Their report has given the committee much to think about in its role of overseeing the operations and resourcing of the Parliamentary Budget Office.
The review canvassed the feedback of a variety of stakeholders as part of its deliberations, including parliamentarians, Commonwealth government agencies, external think tanks and other stakeholders, including journalists.
The review made a total of 16 recommendations, across themes including: a level playing field for costings; accuracy of policy costings; transparency and public understanding of budget and fiscal policy settings; and governance and resources.
This report is particularly timely given that Mr Bowen completes his term as Parliamentary Budget Officer in July and the Presiding Officers are in the process of appointing a new Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit will further consider the report as part of its role in providing ongoing oversight of the Parliamentary Budget Office into the future.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
As chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I present the interim report on the compliance with notice of motion No. 274.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
And, in doing so, I want to speak very briefly to the report. The chamber will have an opportunity to hear from Senator Brandis when he appears before the Senate at 9.30 tomorrow morning, in accordance with the motion No. 274, where he has been asked to report to the Senate. In tabling this report this afternoon, there are a couple of matters within it that I want to draw to the Senate’s attention. We have examined the answers that the AttorneyGeneral has a given to the committee and there are a number of questions that have not been answered. I note that the government has put in a dissenting report, and I look forward to going through that in detail. In the main, there are clearly a number of questions that have not been answered, where the minister has made a spurious claim of public interest immunity, because he has made claims that are not based on grounds accepted by the Senate.
The report quotes the AttorneyGeneral in his response to the Senate on 23 March, where he says: 'Thus, whether or not the Senate has accepted that matters pertaining to confidential legal advice to government are always and in all circumstances immune from disclosure is neither nor there. The fact is that, in general, such matters are not disclosed.' This is not a substantive public interest immunity claim. The committee in its report notes, 'Confidential legal advice to government are not grounds accepted by the Senate as a basis for withholding details or explanations from the Senate or its committees. Rather, the Senate requires that the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the grounds for concluding that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information, specifying the harm to the public interest that would result from the disclosure of the information or the documents.' I just want to draw the Senate’s attention what are accepted public interest immunity grounds before Minister Brandis appears before the Senate tomorrow.
I rise to very briefly comment on the report. I signed, on behalf of Senator Macdonald, the deputy chair of the committee, some dissenting comments from the coalition highlighting that the Attorney-General had responded to questions and highlighting also Senator Macdonald's concerns that the whole conduct of this inquiry was one that was not to the normal standard of inquiries in the Senate. He was particularly aggrieved that there were a number of occasions where hearings were scheduled that he was unable to attend. He believes it is very much a political report as opposed to a substantive report of the Senate and the coalition has certainly submitted a report dissenting from the majority's view, in this case.
I will be very brief in my contribution. The first matter I want to speak about is claims for public interest immunity. This is a plague, at the moment, of plague proportions. The Senate is continually presented with claims for public interest immunity that are designed to deny the Senate the opportunity to do its job, one of its crucial jobs, of scrutinising the government.
Whilst I agree with the comments that Senator Pratt has made, I do feel it is incumbent upon me to point out that this problem—and it is a significant problem—is by no means limited to Senator Brandis and it is, by no means, limited to the claims for public interest immunity that Senator Brandis has made to the legal and constitutional affairs committee.
I do say to the government that many of the claims it has made, certainly since the election, in my view, do not stand up to scrutiny. They do not measure up to previous decisions of the Senate, in regard to what does and does not satisfy a claim for public interest immunity. I want to place the government on notice that they need to do a lot better in this area. Ultimately, every single one of us is here to represent the people of Australia.
Whilst there are occasions where legitimate claims of public interest immunity may be made, the simple fact is that this government over-uses that claim and, in doing so, it deliberately denies the people that we are all here to represent and the people whose taxes pay our wages the opportunity to fully understand why the government is acting across a range of areas.
The second point I want to make is to respond, just briefly, to Senator Fawcett and his comments in regard to Senator Macdonald's comments on the particular inquiry that this interim report is the subject of. Senator McDonald, at length, has attacked this inquiry and described it as—as Senator Fawcett has—a political inquiry rather than a substantive inquiry. Nothing could be further from the truth. This inquiry has diligently conducted itself. It has relentlessly pursued the truth in the matter of the Bell corporation legislation, the deal between the Commonwealth government and the then Western Australian government, the nexus between that deal and the legal directive that was tabled in this place by Senator Brandis, the nexus between that deal and the breakdown in relationship between the first law officer of Australia, the Attorney-General, and the second law officer of this country, the Solicitor-General, which resulted in the Solicitor-General resigning recently.
These are matters of great import to the country. For Senator Fawcett or Senator McDonald to suggest that an inquiry that is looking right into the heart of these matters is not a substantive inquiry, frankly, is an insult to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the documents.
Order! The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate requesting changes in the membership of a committee.
by leave—I move:
That Senator Williams be discharged from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees from 6 pm on 29 March 2017.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I present a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
BIOSECURITY AMENDMENT (BALLAST WATER AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2017
The Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017 will help in our fight to manage biosecurity risks and further strengthen Australia's biosecurity system.
A strong biosecurity system contributes to a strong economy. Our agricultural industries are forecast to earn $60 billion in 2016-17.
Today threats to our biosecurity can emerge faster than ever before. The recent global outbreak of Zika virus, spread by mosquitoes, has shown us how important control of disease-carrying pests is.
This Bill will provide additional powers to control exotic mosquitoes and other disease carriers at Australia's airports and seaports, including on incoming aircraft and vessels.
This includes spraying insecticide to kill mosquitoes capable of carrying Zika virus as well as other disease-carrying vectors so they don't establish populations in Australia.
The Bill gives us the ability to direct airports and seaports to control such incursions.
The Bill will strengthen Australia's ability to manage ballast water in ships. It will provide additional protection for fisheries and coastal environments from the risk of marine pest incursions by fostering new, more effective, ballast water treatment technologies, and phasing out ballast water exchange.
The Bill will position us to ratify the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment.
This Convention was adopted in 2004 and signed by the Howard Government in 2005. It is a key international measure for protecting marine environments. It aims to stop the global spread of potentially invasive and harmful aquatic organisms that can cause havoc to marine ecosystems. These organisms can be transported in the ballast water of ships travelling around the world and can effect biodiversity and lead to substantial economic loss to our maritime industries.
The Convention is an important global initiative involving over fifty countries. It will come into force internationally on 8 September 2017 and we hope to ratify it this year.
For Australians more broadly, these amendments mean there is much less risk of infection with viruses such as Zika. It also means we can continue to enjoy the sea and all the joy that it brings us.
Strengthening Australia's biosecurity system through these legislative amendments means we can continue to enjoy our unique environment, and way of life.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (DISABILITY ACCESS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2017
The digital age has fundamentally altered the way Australians engage with copyright. Content is more accessible than ever before. While this brings with it unique challenges for the protection of copyright, it also provides incredible opportunities for creators and consumers alike. Respect for the creative efforts and economic rights of creators is essential to a properly functioning copyright regime, but in order to harness the opportunities and respond to the challenges presented by the digitisation of content, it is critical that Australia's copyright laws are also flexible and facilitate fair access to, and use of, content.
The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 responds in a meaningful way to views expressed by copyright stakeholders indicating that reform is needed to address outdated, prescriptive and overly complex provisions of the Copyright Act. Stakeholders provided feedback that these provisions were unfairly impacting on the ability of persons with a disability, libraries, archives and educational institutions to access and use copyright material. The Bill is designed to be technology and format neutral, ensuring that these important reforms will remain relevant in an environment of rapid technological change.
Disability Access Provisions
Even with the significant amount of digital content made available online, the vast majority of published material worldwide is not presently accessible to persons who are blind, visually impaired or who have a disability that affects the way a person reads, views, hears or comprehends copyright material. This Bill puts in place a consolidated, flexible exception for use by organisations that assist people with a disability. The Bill also introduces a fair dealing provision for people with a disability.
These measures reflect the Government's commitment to improving accessibility for persons with a disability following the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty on 10 December 2015, and bring Australia in line with global best practice to provide a flexible copyright framework that recognises the various ways people with a disability use accessible format content. These measures are designed to be format neutral to ensure that Australians with a print disability will be able to continue to have fair and equal access to material in line with technological advancements.
Library and Archive exceptions
The digital era also offers us the chance to preserve copyright materials in ways that were not available, and therefore not contemplated, under the existing Act. For this reason, the
Bill replaces the current preservation copying provisions in the Act with simpler, uniform provisions that give libraries, archives and key cultural institutions greater flexibility in preserving the material in their collections.
The new preservation provisions will apply to libraries accessible to members of the public, parliamentary libraries, archives (including the archives of museums and galleries) and prescribed key cultural institutions that hold copyright material of historical or cultural significance to Australia. There are currently three prescribed key cultural institutions, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) and the Australian National University Archives Program.
The new provisions enable libraries and archives to make, if necessary, multiple copies of copyright material in a version or format that is in line with best practice preservation policy, if a copy of the material cannot be obtained in a version or format that is required for preservation. These changes remove the restrictions in the current Act under which preservation copies of published material can only be made after the material has suffered damage, has deteriorated, or is lost or stolen. The new provisions will enable libraries and archives to take a proactive approach to the preservation of the material in their collections for future generations without infringing copyright.
Further, the measures introduced by this Bill will enable greater access to the public to the copyright materials held in the collections of libraries and archives for research purposes. The Bill includes measures to ensure that preservation and research copies of copyright material in electronic form will be able to be made available for access by a person at the library or archives, provided that the library or archives take reasonable steps to ensure that the person accessing that copy does not infringe copyright in that copy. The measures are technology and format neutral, ensuring that organisations and institutions can use the best and most effective preservation methods in line with technological advancement.
Educational provisions
Reducing red tape and adapting to technological advancement are key factors in the measures included in the Bill to streamline the educational statutory licence provisions for the copying and communication of works and broadcasts for educational purposes, and to permit the use of copyright material for online examinations.
These reforms include consolidating and simplifying the existing provisions relating to educational use of works and broadcasts and providing greater flexibility for educational institutions and collecting societies in their negotiations for licensing and access arrangements for copyright material. The measures appropriately balance the interests of copyright owners and the needs of educational institutions while also removing the cumbersome and unnecessary mandatory record keeping requirements of the existing educational statutory licences scheme.
The changes to the educational statutory licensing provisions also consolidates the framework for the operation of declared collecting societies by specifying the requirements for bodies seeking to be declared as collecting societies under the Copyright Act and the circumstances in which such declarations may be revoked. The Bill empowers the Copyright Tribunal to determine questions relating to this new educational statutory licence scheme, upon application by either party.
The Bill also extends the operation of existing provisions that permit the use of hardcopy material by educational institutions for the purposes of examination to allow the use of copyright material for online examinations. This extension will enhance and expand the ways in which examinations are delivered to students and assist our educators to operate competitively in the digital education era.
Term of protection for unpublished material
Facilitating access to culturally important content is at the heart of the measures in the Bill aimed at aligning the terms of protection for unpublished materials with published materials. Currently, if copyright materials are unpublished they remain in copyright in perpetuity, so their productive uses may be lost. By contrast, generally the copyright in a published work subsists for 70 years from the death of the author or, if the work was not published until after the death of the author, for 70 years from first publication. Currently, copyright in a published sound recording or film subsists for 70 years from first publication.
The Bill harmonises the copyright term for works (including a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work) by creating a new standard term of 70 years from the death of the author, irrespective of whether the relevant work has or has not been made public. This means that an unpublished work will have the same term of copyright protection as a published work. Where the identity of the author remains generally unknown, or the work is made by an international organization to which the Act applies, the standard copyright term will be 70 years from when it is made. However, if this work is made public within 50 years of being created, the copyright term will be 70 years from first being made public. For sound recordings and films, a standard copyright term of 70 years from the year in which the material is made will apply. However, if the sound recording or film is made public within 50 years of being made, the copyright term will be 70 years from first being made public.
Libraries, archives and other cultural institutions hold large numbers of unpublished materials which are an important part of Australia's cultural heritage. Setting a term of protection for unpublished materials will give these institutions greater opportunities to deal with unpublished materials and improve access to important Australian historical and cultural materials that were not previously available to the public.
The new copyright terms will commence on 1 January 2019, and will apply to copyright material created before 1 January 2019 that remains unpublished (or otherwise not made public) at that date. These new copyright terms are consistent with the requirements under international conventions and agreements to which Australia is a party. This will also bring Australia into line with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the European Union, where all works have a copyright term, whether they are published or not.
This Bill is an important step in simplifying Australia's existing copyright framework, in response to specific challenges and concerns identified by copyright stakeholders and sectors of the community. The Bill enables the law to more flexibly respond to the constant technological changes in the digital age by ensuring that these sectors and the wider Australian community have fair and reasonable access to copyright material.
CRIMES AMENDMENT (PENALTY UNIT) BILL 2017
The Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2017 will ensure our courts can continue to punish breaches of Commonwealth law with strong, financial penalties that help to deter future offending and keep Australian communities safe.
Penalty units are used to set the maximum fines which can be imposed for offences in Commonwealth legislation and Territory ordinances.
Commonwealth penalties are generally expressed in terms of penalty units rather than specific values. This means that any updates to penalties are applied efficiently and consistently across the statute book. The Commonwealth penalty unit is also indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) every three years, to ensure that financial penalties keep pace with inflation and maintain value over time.
The Bill will increase the amount of the Commonwealth penalty unit from $180 to $210, with effect from 1 July 2017. It will also delay the first automatic CPI adjustment of the penalty unit until 1 July 2020, with indexation to occur every three years following that date.
Strong penalties are a central tenet of an effective justice system. This Bill will strengthen courts' ability to impose appropriate punishments on serious offenders, including those involved in organised crime, white-collar crime, fraud and cybercrime. This measure is estimated to result in increased revenue of $80 million over the next four years, which will support the Government's efforts to repair the Budget and benefit everyday Australians.
Tackling crime and improving community safety is a top priority for the Australian Government. The Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2017 underlines this commitment by strengthening the value of the penalty unit and ensuring that our financial penalties remain an effective deterrent and punishment for those breaking Commonwealth law.
DISABILITY SERVICES AMENDMENT (LINKING UPPER AGE LIMITS FOR DISABILITY SERVICES TO THE PENSION AGE) BILL 2017
PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES AMENDMENT (PPS LEASES) BILL 2017
The Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017 progresses urgently needed reform of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 to minimise the impact of the PPS regime particularly on small and medium Australian businesses.
The Personal Property Securities Act was introduced with bipartisan support in 2009. A cornerstone of this reform was the establishment of the Personal Property Securities Register. This introduced a single national system for the creation, registration, priority and enforcement of security interests in personal property.
The PPS regime has increased the range of property available to secure finance, especially for small businesses, while providing greater confidence to lenders and securing their interests.
The PPS regime replaced 23 state, territory and Commonwealth property and securities registers and over 70 pieces of supporting legislation.
This alone involved the migration of 4.7 million registrations to the new, national Personal Property Securities Register. Reform on this scale is not without its challenges.
Ongoing assessment and adjustment where necessary, is important to ensure that the PPS system meets the needs of the Australian marketplace.
In consultation with Australian businesses and particularly the hire and rental industry, it became clear that although the PPS Act was an important initiative, it has created several challenges for small business in particular. These include the imposition of significant administrative burden and substantial compliance costs, which need to be addressed.
Small and family businesses which do not have the resources to meet this significant burden are vulnerable to the risk of losing crucial business assets. For example, under the Act as it stands, if a hire business fails to register a PPS lease (or registers incorrectly) and the lessee becomes insolvent while in possession of the goods, the goods vest in the insolvent estate of the lessee.
While this arrangement is important to protect creditors and ensure that notice of a security interest is made available to prospective lenders of purchasers, in the small business context and especially for the equipment hire industry, the combination of this administrative burden and the risk of losing key business assets, creates an imminent need for reform.
This is why the government proposes to adjust the rules under the framework which deem certain leases to be security interests for the purposes of the PPS Act. These include leases of goods for a term of more than 12 months or for an indefinite term.
Since its commencement, it has become clear that these deeming provisions have created a disproportionate risk to small business in the short term hire and rental sector. Many Australian businesses, which lease goods to customers for short periods of time, permit their customers to use the goods for as long as they need them. It often does not make sense for a hire business to insist on fixed terms for the lease of a chain saw or cement mixer, for example. If the customer needs the goods for an extra day or a week, the lessor needs the flexibility to accommodate this without an onerous administrative burden.
The Bill will amend the Act's definition of PPS Lease to ensure that it captures only leases which are long enough to necessitate registration on the PPS Register to meet the Act's policy objectives. Leases with an indefinite term will only require registration once they have exceeded two years in length. Similarly, fixed term leases will only require registration if they are for a term of more than two years.
The framework will continue to appropriately capture some longer term, high value hire industry leases by not imposing a blanket exemption on the whole of the industry. Adjusting the PPS lease timeframe will lift the burden on the hire and rental industry and importantly have a minimal impact on the operation of the rest of the PPS framework.
The regulatory burden imposed on the industry by the PPS Act in its current form, is more than is necessary for the achievement of effective and certain secured lending against personal property in Australia. It doesn't make sense for a lease which runs for three days instead of two to require registration on a PPS Register. Businesses for which high volumes of short but indefinite term leases are central to their business model, often struggle to meet the administrative burden imposed by the Act.
This measure will provide relief to industries covered by the PPS Act and, in particular, the hire and rental industry, an important industry with a total turnover of around $6.6 billion, that employs over 18,000 Australians and provides essential support to the building and construction sectors. It is expected to reduce the number of registrations that may need to be made and free business using these types of leases from the risks associated with absent or incorrect registrations.
Finally, on behalf of the government, I wish to extend thanks to our state and territory counterparts for their support in developing this measure. The PPS regime is underpinned by a referral of powers from the States and the reform process is governed by an intergovernmental agreement which requires that all reforms must be assented to by State and Territory governments prior to introduction. Without the support and cooperation of state and territory Attorneys-General and Ministers for Justice, reform to this important area of economic regulation would not be possible.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS) AMENDMENT (POLAR CODE) BILL 2017
It is important that the Government's laws for the prevention of marine pollution are adequate, up to date and consistent with our international obligations.
The Bill I present today, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Polar Code) Bill 2017 (the Bill), will ensure that our framework for preventing marine pollution remains consistent with international requirements.
The Bill will amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (known as the POTS Act) to implement domestically our international obligations stemming from conventions adopted at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Through the IMO, Australia has been integral to the development of the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (known as the Polar Code). The Polar Code is implemented through amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. The Polar Code has been developed to supplement existing IMO instruments to increase the safety of ships' operation and mitigate the impact on the people and environment in the remote, vulnerable and harsh polar waters.
The Polar Code addresses the specific risks of operating in the Antarctic and the Arctic polar waters and specifies a range of operational and structural measures. It covers ship design, construction and equipment, as well as seafarer training and qualifications, search and rescue capabilities, and environmental discharges.
This Bill will amend the POTS Act to ensure Australia implements its international obligations into domestic law, by ensuring that the stricter discharge requirements for oil, noxious liquid substances, sewage, and garbage that exist for certain ships operating in polar waters, as set out in the Polar Code, are reflected in Australian legislation.
Marine Orders will also be amended to properly implement the Polar Code. Marine Orders are legislative instruments made under the POTS Act by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's Chief Executive Officer.
Australia has a strong national interest in Antarctica, including in the safety of shipping and the environmental protection of Antarctic waters. Australia has responsibilities in a very significant portion of the Southern Ocean, including search and rescue coordination, environmental protection, hydrography and nautical charting, and safety of vessels operating in the area.
Australia has been actively engaged in the development of the Polar Code, in order to influence and improve safety and pollution prevention outcomes in respect of Antarctic waters. Australia's Southern Ocean maritime interests are best advanced through internationally agreed arrangements that are consistent with Antarctica's unique legal and political status.
Australia's implementation of these amendments is consistent with our long-standing support for the protection of life and safety at sea and the marine environment, and with our active backing of, and participation in development of the Polar Code.
I commend the Bill.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I present a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (MISUSE OF MARKET POWER) BILL 2016
In 2014, the Government fulfilled our election commitment and commissioned an independent review into Australia's competition framework: the Harper Review. The Harper Review was the first 'root and branch' review of Australia's competition laws for 20 years. Professor Ian Harper and the review Panel consulted extensively with businesses, consumers, regulators and legal experts and found that the operation of section 46 was a concern for many.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Harper and his team for their efforts and diligence in producing the Harper Review.
Schedule 1 to this Bill amends section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the misuse of market power provision, to better target anti-competitive conduct, better support pro-competitive conduct, and simplify the provision.
The current section 46 prohibits corporations with substantial market power from taking advantage of its power for one of three specific purposes related to damaging an actual or potential competitor or preventing them from competing.
In its Final Report, the Harper Review concluded that the current section 46 fails to adequately prevent the misuse of market power and is not reliably enforceable, for two key reasons.
Firstly, the current section 46 requires that a corporation 'take advantage' of its substantial market power. This is a poor test for distinguishing competitive from anti-competitive conduct. It permits a corporation with substantial market power to engage in highly anti-competitive conduct, merely because a corporation without substantial market power could commercially engage in the same conduct. The test does not recognise that conduct that is not anti-competitive when undertaken by a corporation that doesn't have market power can be anti-competitive when undertaken by a firm that does. This leaves a significant loophole in section 46.
Secondly, the current section 46 only prohibits conduct if the corporation acted with the purpose of damaging an actual or potential competitor. The Harper Review found this focus to be inconsistent with the overriding policy objective of the Act, which is to protect competition and not individual competitors. The reforms in this bill recognise that it is the competitive process that drives corporations to supply better goods and services and offer lower prices to consumers, and it is the competitive process that our competition laws need to protect.
The failure of section 46 to adequately prevent the misuse of market power allows anti-competitive conduct to slow the entry and expansion of new and innovative firms, delays the entry of new technologies into Australia and impedes economic growth in the long term.
The Harper Review recommended amending section 46 to address these problems and strengthen the misuse of market power provision, by refocusing on conduct with the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. The Government acknowledged the importance of this issue for businesses and consumers, and conducted a lengthy consultation process on a range of alternatives before concluding that the recommendation of the Harper Review represented the best option to reform the law.
As amended, section 46 will prohibit corporations with substantial market power from engaging in conduct that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in markets in which they directly or indirectly participate.
The amendment is specifically designed to minimise any uncertainty involved with changing the law, by using existing competition law concepts such as 'substantially lessening competition' and by providing anti-competitive and pro-competitive factors to guide consideration of the purpose, effect or likely effect of conduct.
As a result of this reform, section 46 will better target anti-competitive conduct and better support pro-competitive conduct. Section 46 will be more reliably enforceable and promote strong competition in Australian markets, benefiting both consumers and the economy.
This reform is an important step to ensure Australia has the best possible competition framework to support innovation, enhance competition and boost economic growth and jobs. It is a key part of the Government's response to the Harper Review, which is all about increasing choice and delivering better services for consumers.
An effective misuse of market power provision is an important and necessary part of competition law, particularly for Australia's more than two million small businesses which make up more than 97 per cent of all businesses.
While there are some in this Chamber who would prefer to keep the current drafting of section 46 and not see Australian businesses able to compete on a level playing field, this Government recognises that reforming competition law is one of the best options we have to lift long-term productivity growth and generate economic benefits that can be shared by everyone.
The reforms in this Bill will more effectively focus section 46 on the long-term interests of consumers, improving the law's clarity, effectiveness and force. They will provide another tool for regulators to ensure Australian businesses can flourish; new and innovative firms can enter new markets and expand; new technologies can be introduced into Australia; and consumers can receive the best quality products at the lowest price.
Most importantly, this reform will ensure the focus of the law is on protecting the competitive process to the benefit of consumers; it is not about protecting individual competitors or a particular group of businesses.
These amendments will make markets work better for the benefit of all Australians and help to lift our long term productivity growth. They will ensure that all business can compete on a level playing field, rewarding innovative and dynamic businesses that provide the best services at the lowest cost. This will benefit households by giving them more choice and better value products and services.
Schedule 2 to this Bill makes consequential amendments to repeal the telecommunications-specific anti-competitive conduct laws in Divisions 2 and 3 of the Act. With the amendment of section 46 and the development of competition in telecommunications in the past 20 years, these rules under Part XIB are no longer necessary or appropriate.
Following the proposed amendments, any misuse of market power in the telecommunications sector will be managed by the same general competition laws applying to other sectors of the economy, and which will be strengthened by the enhancements being made to section 46.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission supports these amendments and retains other extensive powers to deal with other competition concerns in telecommunications.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
I move:
That the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination 2017, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2017L00210].
This is about disallowing the extension of the trials into the cashless welfare card. These trials, as I am sure people are aware, are in Ceduna in South Australia and the East Kimberley in Western Australia. In the East Kimberley, the trial has basically focused on the towns of Kununurra and Wyndham. Despite the failure of the Northern Territory intervention and income management, which is clearly articulated in the final evaluation of the report which I have spoken about many times in this place, the government decided to proceed with a trial of the cashless welfare card, the cashless debit card, which quarantined 80 per cent of a person's income support. Not satisfied with trying to quarantine 50 per cent of a person's income support in the Northern Territory, they are now trying to quarantine 80 per cent. Recipients were told the trial would be for a year. They were not consulted about the trial going ahead in Ceduna or in the East Kimberley. As a slight sop to Senator Xenophon, a so-called public meeting was called in Ceduna after the event of the legislation going through, but recipients were not adequately consulted, and the government hand-picked people they called leaders in the community to give the okay to the trial.
Recipients were told that the trial would be for a year. On the day it was supposed to finish in Ceduna, the government announced that they would be extending the trial in Ceduna and in the Kimberley. They released an evaluation report, but up to that time people that were existing on the card in Ceduna had no idea of what their future was: were they going to be stuck on the card or were they coming off? I must say that, given that the government had not been talking about any transition approach, I was extremely suspicious that in fact the government was going to find some way of trying to extend the card, and of course we now have this regulation before us which I am seeking to disallow. The government, as I said, announced only on the day the trial was due to end in Ceduna that they would be extending it, and I have to say it was distressing news for many recipients who are trapped on the card and have expressed that concern to me.
The cashless welfare card restricts anyone on a working age income support payment to just 20 per cent cash and 80 per cent on the card. That is supposedly to stop spending on alcohol, drugs or gambling. As anticipated, the yearlong trial, supported by both the government and the opposition, has turned out to be a rubber stamp, spruiked with premature evidence, anecdotes and ideology for the entire year of the trial. Last year, journalists were sent bits and pieces from a so-called interim confidential report. When you followed it up straightaway, you could not get the report—strange, that! It was some sort of secret report. But, when I questioned the Department of Social Services in estimates, they were very clear at the time that no such report existed. I was fairly persistent about this. As people that know of my long-term engagement in this issue will know, I am persistently asking questions about income management and the cashless welfare card in estimates. No report existed.
Miraculously, a week and a half later, a report appeared that had very clearly been thrown together and that sought to justify the minister's and the government's claims that the trial was going really well. Unfortunately, there was not a proper analysis of the raw datasets that were thrown into the report. Those were not questioned. The sweeping statements and anecdotal feedback were treated by the government as if they were gospel. It was very clear that it was nothing more than a set of anecdotal comments that the minister and some departmental staff had been talking about.
The government is now justifying the trial continuation on the basis of the wave 1 interim evaluation report, which was done by Orima. It is the first part of the evaluation of the sites. Surprise, surprise! The government is saying how successful the trial is and extending the trial beyond the initial period. I have to say I am really not surprised, because that is what we thought would happen all the time. That is what we warned the opposition about, and that is exactly what has come to pass.
The government are claiming this is proof of concept. It is so far from it that it is unbelievable, but they are still claiming it is proof of concept and that it justifies them extending the trial when half—I should be correct here: 49 per cent, or half, basically—of the participants on the card are saying they are worse off on the card. The KPIs that the Orima report talks about are not even the same as the aims of the legislation. So we are measuring these KPIs, and they are not actually about the aims that are contained in the legislation and that the government said they are aiming for. But just look at a couple of them; I am not going to reel off the whole of the report. Look at 'Output KPIs—performance rated fully effective/KPI target achieved'. Tell me how anybody that is actually reading this without rose-tinted glasses on could take that from this. It says:
The Wave 1 survey—
I will come back to the dubious survey process in a minute—
found that (on average across the two Trial sites)—
so here we are averaging the information—
25% of CDCT—
cashless debit card trial—
participants and 13% of their family members reported drinking alcohol less frequently since the Trial commenced …
Twenty-five per cent—oh, good! I can see that KPI is met! They are saying 25 per cent is successful when half of the participants are saying they are worse off. They ignore that but say 25 per cent say they have drunk less.
Let's come to the survey. The survey is basically push-polling. We saw this in some of the dubious evaluations that were carried out on the Northern Territory intervention, where they did the same sort of thing. They asked participants, 'Are you gambling less?' Well, of course they are going to say they are gambling less if they are going to try to get off the BasicsCard up there. 'Are you looking after your children?' They know it is a government backed survey. Will they say, 'Oh, no, I'm not looking my children and I'm not feeding them'? They will say, 'Of course I'm feeding them better.' That is not a proper evaluation of the success or otherwise of the card.
The report goes on about other particular issues. It says:
The Wave 1 survey found that (on average across the two Trial sites), around a quarter of CDCT participants who reported using illegal drugs before the Trial commenced indicated that they had been using illegal drugs less often …
Again, wouldn't you expect people to be saying, 'Yes, we're using drugs less often?' Only a quarter of those, by the way, said they were using drugs less often, yet this trial is supposedly a proof of concept and an outstanding success. No, it is not.
Then let's look at an example of the outstanding qualitative evidence they are supposed to have.
The following positive impacts of the CDCT on drug use were identified by the qualitative research:
o A CDCT participant who had previously been addicted to methamphetamines (ice) but had stopped using ice due to limited access to cash …
That's a great evidence base, isn't it?
o A family who was now consuming less marijuana due which had allowed them to spend more money on clothes and food …
o A few stakeholders felt—
they just felt—
that the frequency of marijuana usage had reduced due to limited access to cash.
They felt it? Come on, what sensible, thinking person who actually looks at scientific rigorous evaluation thinks this is an adequate evaluation and proof of concept? You are push-polling people who are, of course, going to say they are drinking less alcohol, when they are asked by a survey mob they know is reporting to government. Of course you are going to get a biased sample saying, 'Yes, we drink less. Yes, we're looking after our kids better. Yes, we're not gambling so much.'
The evaluation report, in fact, reports against just one of the government's supposed four aims of the trial, specifically the aim to reduce the amount of certain restricted payments available to be spent on alcoholic beverages, gambling and illegal drugs. This aim is not proved. I have just read out to you that only 25 per cent of the participants say that.
First, they are connecting the two trials, which means you cannot get an effective clear picture of East Kimberley and Ceduna independent of each other. Second, alcohol restrictions make it virtually impossible to make any clear analysis of the impact of the card. The report largely ignores the alcohol restrictions in Kununurra—in fact, a report has just come out on that. I know the community up there is very concerned, because I have had contact from them that the report is ignoring the work that has been happening around alcohol restrictions. It needs to look at that. They cannot draw the conclusion that it has been successful in relation to alcohol, because they simply do not have the proper data. Third, there is poor analysis of how recipients are getting around the card. The police still think there is a problem with alcohol. The report says that it is not reporting on how people get around the cards. I will come back to that in a minute.
Aim 2, to determine whether there was a reduction or decrease in violence or harm in the trial area, was not properly examined. The increase in domestic violence is, strategically, not reported—neither are the rates of suicide, self-harm, anxiety or depression. As well as this, the key up-to-date statistics from the South Australian and WA police have been left out of the report. In the South Australian trial site and the areas surrounding that, they have seen a large jump in robbery and related offences, up 111 per cent. Aggravated robbery is up 120 per cent, non-aggravated robbery is up 400 per cent and serious crime trespass is up 20 per cent. Where is that in the evaluation report? How is that proof of concept?
Aim 3, to determine whether such arrangements are more effective when community bodies are involved, is not examined. In this regard, the failure of the panel and the collective community action against the card has been omitted from the report. There has been no assessment of the involvement of the leadership groups and the panel process. People do not know who are on the community panels—they do not know their faces. The department admitted that in estimates. The department said, 'We are not releasing the names of the panel.' These people are being judged by their neighbours and by their peers, but they do not know who is judging them when they try and get either an exemption or a reduction from, say, 80 per cent to 50 per cent of their money quarantined.
Similarly, there has been a lot of concern expressed, and that is why community groups, individuals and participants are concerned about the card. You have to question the amount of money that is being given out—and I will come to that quickly on Ceduna—in relation to this trial and how it has impacted on community groups. You have to wonder whether they are more supportive of the card because they think that they will not get the additional funding that has been going into communities. The fact that the communities do not know who is judging them is deeply concerning. Lastly, aim 4 is to encourage socially responsible behaviour. That aim is not examined either.
People are getting around the card, for example, by shopping. I have visited the Kununurra trial site and I have spoken to people who have supported the card, to people who have opposed the card, to participants and to some of the leaders up there. It is fair to say that the community is very divided over the card. You do not have to be up there long to find out some of the ways they are getting around the card. One of those is through shopping. One of the things that the proponents of the card and people who were supportive in the community—non-participants—were saying about the card was, 'Oh, you see a lot more Aboriginal people in the supermarket.' Do you know what is happening? Card holders are going to people that have cash, are doing their shopping for them and are then keeping the cash while putting the shopping on their card. One person said to me, 'They're walking around the supermarket with a list.' That is because they are buying food for somebody else. That is just one way that they are getting around the card.
For the reasons outlined above, it has simply not been demonstrated, and there is simply no clear evidence to show, that the trials meet the four aims or provide proof of concept. Other concerns raised with me include the extremely poor research in the report and the inclusion of views of non-participants in the report. The difference is very clear when you look at participants and non-participants. Non-participants have a higher rate of thinking that the card has been successful and people's lives are better. People are looking at other people and saying, 'Your life's better because you are on the card.' Whereas, the people on the card are saying, 'No, it's not.'
As I said, it has divided the community. There was a complete lack of consultation. Claiming that there has been any improvement as a result of the card—just the card, not the services—is ridiculous, particularly when you look at the extent and the breadth of the funding that has gone into the services in Ceduna. I am not for one minute arguing against the fact that we should be putting money into these communities to improve services. I strongly argue that we should be, and that communities are disadvantaged to the extent that they are because these resources have not been going in. Why is there no adequate discussion of this in the report? They write it off by saying, 'A lot of people didn't know about the services, so they obviously haven't used them, so they obviously haven't had an impact.' I do not think that is a fair conclusion to draw.
There is no mention in the report of cost; no attempt has been made to calculate the net benefit. Given the government's ongoing narrative about budget stress and the need for budget savings, wouldn't you think they would be looking at it if this is in fact a cost-effective way of addressing disadvantage? I argue very strongly that this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with the government on that point at all.
Eva Cox has been doing some analysis of the report, and has done a paper on that. She says: 'The lack of serious scrutiny of the data on outcomes of the trial to date is deeply concerning. This program is flaunted as being aimed at fixing the supposed problems of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and is also a wider experiment in income support reform. The inadequate scrutiny of the program could well be linked to racialised assumptions that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are somehow less capable of managing their money and should have their affairs controlled, regardless of whether they drink or have other behavioural issues. Some assumptions are then extended to others receiving working age payments and eventually may extend even further. In the report, recipients are in fact blamed for the majority of cases where the card was declined at stores, in fact I spoke to a number of people who were in the situation where their card was declined, and I would suggest the people I spoke to would make valiant attempts to use the card.'
It goes on to say, 'There should be more education to assist participants to be more confident'—in other words, putting the blame back on the participant. The minister's claim that the report provided him with 'strong, independent evaluation results' is disturbing, and is in fact a myth. There is no clear proof of concept, because there is no independent data confirming validity of any of the claims or anecdotal evidence put forward in the preliminary report.
This is flawed research and flawed evaluation for the government, but when you think about it the government always wanted to extend this trial. We have already had numerous people out there saying they want to extend it to young people, they want to extend it nationally or to the regions. This trial is based on the government's ideology, not on evidence. We know that from the Northern Territory intervention. That is indisputable. This approach should be abandoned. The trial should finish and the government should invest the money that they are spending on this on better services and better ways of achieving outcomes we all so desperately want. I urge the chamber to support the disallowance.
The Nick Xenophon Team will not be supporting this disallowance. The cashless debit card trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley have attracted their fair share of critics. However, what is frequently overlooked is the level of support for these trials, especially from Indigenous leaders in these communities.
The independent Wave 1 interim evaluation report produced by ORIMA Research concluded that overall the cashless debit card trial has been effective to date in terms of its performance against the key performance indicators established in the evaluation framework. The report says:
In particular, the Trial has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling – establishing a clear 'proof-of-concept' and meeting the necessary preconditions for the planned medium-term outcomes in relation to reduced levels of harm related to these behaviours.
The report claims that the findings:
… indicate that the reductions in these behaviours have been largely driven by the impact of the debit card quarantining mechanism and not by the additional services provided via the CDCT package or factors external to—
the debit card. The report acknowledges:
At this interim stage there is only limited evidence of early impacts on crime, violence, injuries and perceptions of safety … these medium-term outcomes were not expected to be seen in this timeframe and will be the focus of Wave 2 of the evaluation.
I will briefly speak to these conclusions.
Firstly though, I want to note that while the evaluation appears to be comprehensive in terms of consideration of KPIs and did include a survey of the local population in the trial communities, there is no substitute for direct engagement with community members and leaders and on-the-ground experience. I have visited Ceduna twice since I was elected, for a total period of three days, meeting a number of organisations and services and chatting to residents on the street. That is because it was important to me to hear directly from the local community about their experiences, rather than forming an opinion based on what I thought residents might think or what was being reported in the media. To anyone in this place who has views about the card, especially strong views about this card, I encourage you to visit these communities. I encourage you to speak with those who are living the experience. To not hear directly from those who are participating in the trial and those who are living around them is, in my view, an abrogation of our duties as parliamentarians.
If I had to summarise the views of the individuals, businesses, community groups, health workers and NGOs I have spoken to I would say this: the trial seems to be working, but it is still too early to tell. When I first went over at the end of September last year, the general feeling was that the card was working, but there was a lack of data and information in the community to support that perception. But it was also noted that the services that essentially support the trial were vital to any change. For example, the Mobile Assistance Patrol, which provides transport for individuals affected by alcohol or other drugs who are at risk of harm to themselves or others. The bus also results in an increase of admissions to other health services, such as the sobering up unit, by providing transport to this facility instead of those people spending their night on the streets. This highlights the difficulty in interpreting data without the full picture.
Issues that were raised with the card usage were being resolved relatively quickly with services such as the Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation helping cardholders with financial management and issues such as lost cards. The inability to obtain a balance at an ATM had been a common complaint, which was also worked through. Some services noted they could operate better if the positions which were created under the CDC package were able to be filled by qualified staff before the CDC trial started and if there was better retention of staff in general—a challenge faced by many services in rural and remote communities.
I spoke with some local Indigenous people who were walking by me on the street: one said the card was not working because he did not have 'enough cash for booze'; a young woman shrugged in response and said she thought it was ok. The people I spoke to who opposed the card seemed to do so because they fundamentally believed it was wrong to impose the card on welfare recipients, but many of these people were not on the card themselves.
I could go on and on about the feedback I have received, but I will now quickly turn to the data. The findings which were released last year by DSS and the latest by ORIMA can be difficult to interpret because, for example, with respect to crime statistics for Ceduna, the entire local service area is covered, which is a significant portion of the west coast of South Australia. Poker machine use also covers other towns, not just Ceduna. Alcohol stats in the ORIMA report are based on self-reporting. The local supermarket in Ceduna has apparently had a significant increase in trade, particularly of fruit and vegetables. The data shows that the purchases at the supermarket using the card have increased, but there are no stats for before the card was implemented.
As for findings in the ORIMA report, the survey found that on average in the two trial sites 25 per cent of trial participants reported drinking less frequently. Indicators relating to illegal drug use showed some improvement, with participants reporting less usage of illegal drugs since becoming CDCT participants. Gambling had reduced overall, and in Ceduna poker machine revenue was 12 per cent lower compared to January 2016. The report acknowledges that there remain issues such as the lack of awareness or understanding about card usage, and other criticisms such as community panels not being established in a timely manner.
Other issues have been faced by the community, such as grog running—on which I have engaged with the South Australian government, calling for legislative reform—and predatory payday lenders signing up debit card holders. Again, that is an issue that I have taken up with the federal government.
But, as I said earlier, at this time it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. Although feedback on whether the card is in fact working or not is mixed, in my experience the strongest and most desperate views came from the community leaders advocating for it to continue. Simply pulling the plug on the trial is not an option. The consequences of flooding an almost cashless community with cash would be dire. Multiple groups told me that, when money came into the community during the trial by way of inheritances, tax refunds or insurance payouts, alcohol consumption, violence and gambling spiked, and this is also reflected in the data.
If, in the future, community leaders decide that they no longer wish for the debit card to apply to their community, then a withdrawal plan would need to be in place. But it is the Nick Xenophon Team's position that, having engaged with the Ceduna community in particular and considering positive statistics in the independent evaluation with respect to gambling and alcohol consumption in particular as well, we should listen to the community leaders who have asked for the trial to continue.
Labor opposes the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination 2017. We do not believe in a blanket approach to income quarantining. That is not an option for Labor to even consider. We do not believe it should be rolled out nationally. Senator Siewert has strong views on this, and the Greens have strong views, but people that we have engaged with have equally strong views, and people in the communities have equally strong views. Their views are in opposition to the views that the Greens have put here today.
This is an extremely tough issue. This is an issue about future generations as well as the generations that we have trying to deal with the problem now. We understand that the vast majority of people on income support are more than capable of managing their own finances, but the level of alcohol abuse in some communities just cannot be ignored. Labor supports community-driven initiatives designed to tackle alcohol abuse.
When I was listening to Senator Siewert, I had a look at the NACCHO Aboriginal health site, and there was a quote there. I will just read that quote. It is from the Wunan Foundation's Ian Trust, Desmond Hill and Gelganyem Trust chairman Ted Hall. They said:
It is our view that continuing to deliver the same programs we have delivered for the past 40 years will do nothing for our people and, besides wasting more time and money, will condemn our children and future generations to a life of poverty and despair,
Our children will continue to be removed from their families because their families are not safe, many of our children will be born with FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) and never be able to receive a good education, and a large percentage of our people will go to prison and, in some cases, commit suicide. We believe that this trial could be the catalyst for breaking the cycle of poverty and despair in the East Kimberley.
That is an equally strong opposite view from local community leaders in the Kimberley.
Senator Siewert talks about anecdotes and ideology. I do not think it should be about anecdotes. Labor does not say it should be about anecdotes. We do not believe it should be about ideology. We believe it should be about what the community wants, what the communities need and how we resolve these intergenerational problems. We support, as I have said, community-driven initiatives to tackle alcohol abuse.
We offered our support to the Cashless Debit Card Trial in both Ceduna and Kununurra. We did that because we consulted with local Indigenous communities, and the feedback we got was similar to the quote I gave. It was that people needed help; they needed support; and there was a huge problem that had to be dealt with. So we listened to the people in Ceduna and Kununurra and heard that they are desperate for action to tackle these issues in their communities. Community leaders in both locations offered their support for the Cashless Debit Card Trial. These communities wanted the trials to take place, and we will continue to listen to them in coming months.
The interim evaluation of the trials has also been made publicly available. The evaluation has found that overall the trial has been effective, in particular in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling. The final evaluation is due to be completed in June this year. We will scrutinise the report and listen to people in both Ceduna and Kununurra about the trials. We will not simply rely on anecdotes or ideology that might underpin any of the arguments or issues; we will listen to the people of Ceduna and Kununurra about the trials.
We know that these problems cannot be ignored—and they will not be solved by income quarantining alone. We are not saying income quarantining will fix these problems. But there is a desperation amongst many of the community leaders and many in the community about trying to deal with these issues. That is why we gained a commitment from the government to provide additional supports for participating communities, including an initial $1 million for community services in Ceduna and an additional $1.3 million to support families in Kununurra. You cannot just put in a debit card and say that will solve the problem. There needs to be wraparound support. There needs to be mental health support. There needs to be health support. There needs to be drug and alcohol support. These are the issues that wrap around the debit card or that should be the fundamental issues that are dealt with in the community.
These are complex, multidimensional problems; they are intergenerational problems; and they are social problems of great significance. The current approach to substance abuse in some areas of Australia is not working, and we must give proper consideration to new ways of addressing the tragic devastation of drug and alcohol abuse.
And it is not just Indigenous communities that are faced with drug and alcohol problems. I have not drunk for I think it is now 40 years. I know I cannot drink, so I do not drink, but I had lots of support to deal with that problem. Not many in Indigenous communities have the support that I had when I knew that I had an alcohol problem. This is an issue that has to be dealt with not just in Indigenous communities but also everywhere else. When I was listening to the debate earlier about taxation on alcohol, I kept thinking back not to the debates about how efficient the alcohol tax should be; I kept thinking back to what my life would have been like if I had not been able to get off alcohol. It would have been devastating. Look at the health problems many families have and the financial problems many families have. The family violence that comes from alcohol and drug abuse is huge, absolutely huge. So I do not find it intellectually substantial for people to come in and argue a point of view when they do not understand these other issues—that it is simply about a card. It is not about a card. It is about far more than a card. People are crying out for help, so there needs to be more help, and it is not just a card that will address the issue. So we have got to find other ways of addressing drug and alcohol abuse.
We do not support introducing a cashless debit card to all young people on social security under the age of 18. There is no formal proposal by the government to do that at this stage. We do not think that welfare quarantining can be useful unless it is well targeted. It has to be well targeted. And we do not believe it should be rolled out nationally. We do not believe in a blanket rollout. We certainly do believe that this is a trial that was requested and sought by community leaders and many in the communities, and we will have a look at the outcome of the second report. We will not simply look at the report, read the report and come to a conclusion.
Like you did with this one, then?
Senator Siewert, you can interrupt all you like. You can yell all you like. I know how passionate you are about this, but you should put some of your passion aside and be a bit dispassionate about the issues that the Aboriginal communities and all communities in these areas are facing. We should look at what wraparound services need to be put in place and how we put finance into those areas that allow people to get out of the intergenerational social problems that are there.
So we take the view that the community has asked for this and we will look at it, but we will go back and talk to the communities. We will consult with the communities. We will make an assessment separate from a report as to how this is working out. We will talk to Indigenous leaders, we will talk to the Indigenous community and we will try and make the best decisions we can in relation to this. We will not have just an ideological, blanket view. We will not engage in assertions that this is wrong. We will not engage in assertions that this is not helping the community. We will have a look at it and we will analyse it, because alcohol and drugs in the community are a big problem.
I have heard it said that alcohol is part of Australian culture. Well, for many, it is a bad part of Australian culture; it is not a good part of Australian culture. I am not a wowser. I do not say people cannot drink. I just recognise that as an alcoholic I cannot drink. I have actually talked to Indigenous people who did not have the support that I had to deal with that terrible disease of alcoholism. People need help. They need support. This card is seen as one way to do that. But there are many more things we will have to do in relation to this. So I stand by Labor's position that we will have a look at the report, engage with the community, talk to Indigenous leaders and other community leaders, and make a decision about this. But we will not support—we will certainly not support—a blanket rollout of this card across the country.
I think the alcohol industry should be doing a bit more to put funding into these communities to support them. As part of any trial, I would call on the alcohol industry to look at what they can do in a positive way in these communities, instead of just taking profits out of these communities, putting more people into poverty and creating bigger problems. There is not just a need for the Greens, Labor, crossbenchers, the Liberals and the Nationals to debate these issues here; there has to be an approach, I think, where the industry that is making a profit out of people's misery actually does something constructive.
For some time we have called for an alcohol summit in this country. I believe that there should be an alcohol summit, and that could go hand-in-hand with a drug summit. We need to talk about these issues. We need to deal with them in a dispassionate manner. We need to look at the devastation that has been wrought on our communities in relation to these issues. On that basis, we say this trial has still not been finalised.
We do not support a disallowance. We will look at this in a strategic manner. We will analyse the report. We will talk to the community. My view is we should also be talking to the alcohol industry. They have a contribution that they should be making in these communities as well.
One Nation will not be supporting Senator Siewert's motion to disallow the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination 2017. I was fortunate enough to be invited, by Andrew Forrest, to a meeting with Aboriginals from Ceduna and Kununurra. That was the reason to sit down and talk to them with regard to this card. At that meeting, over a lengthy period of time, they explained to me about the card and what it meant to their communities. They said that it had improved their communities. They saw less domestic violence, they saw less drinking and they saw more children start to attend school. They thought it was far better in their communities. They were praising the card, and they expressed to me their opinion on that.
We talk about pouring more money in to deal with the Aboriginal issues. Yes, there is a drinking problem. Yes, there are drugs. There are problems, such as domestic violence, that are not only in their communities. We see domestic violence throughout Australia. In dealing with the problems there over the years, I have seen billions of dollars being thrown at this whole thing to deal with the Aboriginals. Years ago I called it an Aboriginal industry. It was costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. If anyone spoke out about it, complained or questioned where the money went they were called 'racist'—you could not talk about it. I think it needs to be talked about openly and honestly.
I have been informed that we spend approximately $5.6 billion a year to deal with Aboriginal issues. Senator Siewert mentioned that we should put more money into services. I have just been over to Western Australia, and I visited Kalgoorlie. They are having a huge problem with the Aboriginal people there that are coming to town. They are accessing alcohol. They are sleeping on the streets. The councillors are saying, 'We don't know how to deal with this whole issue.' They informed me that there are about 170 different agencies, and yet they have this problem. The agencies do not work together. They do not communicate with each other. There is no cross-referencing of anything. We have this ongoing problem. The agencies only work from nine to five, and nothing happens after that period of time. The police have their hands tied. They do not know how to deal with this issue.
Having the card, as we have seen and as they have told me, restricts them from spending money on alcohol and on drugs. There is another issue. With the Aboriginal community usually if someone has something they must share it with the rest of the community. If a family comes along then they share what they have, whether it be money, alcohol or whatever they have. That is their culture. That card cannot be transferred to anyone else. When they know that they cannot get money from that card to gamble, to buy alcohol, to buy cigarettes or to buy drugs then the money is used wisely—to feed the kids, to buy decent food and to pay the bills. That is important. That is what this is all about.
If we really care about these people and want to do something about it we have to have an opinion and work together to help them. Regardless of whether they are Aboriginal, whatever people they are, if anyone needs this assistance in a community then we should look at it. We should look into what the community wants. Clearly, in my discussions with them, this is what the community wants. It works for them.
For too long I have heard too many bleeding hearts saying their opinions without truly looking at the whole issue that is happening here. It is the same as when I went up to Palm Island years ago. I saw what was happening up there; I walked around the place. I had three men—one was as young as about 15, and he was drunk at around about two o'clock in the afternoon—say 'Pauline, we want to work.' That is what they want to do, but no-one wants to get involved or say anything. I was accused of going up there, and I was called a racist. This is what is happening. They want someone to stand up and speak up for them, because they have real problems and real issues.
We need to start making the tough decisions and start really investigating what is happening. There is an Aboriginal industry out there. There are people who are abusing the system and ripping off taxpayers' dollars. It is not going where it is supposed to be going. Everyone shuts down, because it is taboo—you cannot talk about it. I believe in having an honest discussion about this. We should talk about it, because I know these people are.
I went to a meeting in 1998. I had all the media there. I had about 12 Aboriginal women and children who were in the room. They held up my hand and said, 'We have been hoping and praying for someone like Pauline Hanson to come along, because our women are being bashed and raped, and our kids are glue sniffing.' Nothing was reported, because they could not possibly do that. All these years I have been ridiculed about it, and what needs to be done is just openness and honesty. We need to talk about these issues that are happening, because they are crying out for it.
When I went up to Port Hedland recently, two Aboriginal women came up to me and said: 'We need a royal commission into Aboriginal spending, about where the money goes. Where do our royalties go? Where does our money go?' They are questioning the whole system as well, because it is not going where it is supposed to go. They want to see improvements. They want to see their kids educated. They want to see law and order in their towns. They want decent housing. And it is not because the Australian taxpayer has not paid billions of dollars into this industry; they have. The Australian people have paid for this. But there are people who are not being accountable to taxpayers—and not to their own people. I have seen this over the years.
I do support this, and I think we need to listen to the communities, and that is exactly what I have done. They do want this. And as regards those under 18 years of age getting this, I do support that. That is another thing that we must look at. As I have travelled Australia—and in rural and regional areas, and not only there but every place, we have a drug problem. There is a huge ice problem in this country. These kids are getting on the ice, because they cannot get jobs, because there is no future for them and because they are depressed, and so they get caught up in taking drugs. If the have cash in their pockets, of course they are going to buy the drugs. If having this cashless card means these kids cannot get cash to give to the drug dealers out there—these parasites that are feeding off them—then this may be the way to stop it, so that these kids can have a chance.
Forget about feeling soft and bleeding-heart over everything. Start making some touch decisions and ask the parents out there how they feel about it. Would the parents encourage this? Ask the Australian people if they want to see a cashless society for these kids that are under 18 years of age. Will it benefit them? Because a lot of these parents that I have spoken to would dearly love to have the right answers, and clean up the mess that this country is in. If we do not start dealing with the ice problem and the drugs, heaven help us and our future generations. Thank you.
I will not be supporting this either. As a matter of fact I have spent four or five days in Ceduna on a couple of different trips. I have heard all the positives. I have looked at all the help that Minister Tudge has put in there to make sure that the card makes it easy for people, so the help is sitting there. It was all aligned; it was all done well. I watched him, and, as soon as something came up, within 48 hours he fixed it. Everything has been thrown at this.
When I was over there, it was nice to see—I walked up and down the streets for two days. I walked into most shops. I talked to—did not matter what colour skin they were—if they were outside the courts or they were inside the courts, I went and spoke to them. I went out to the communities. They want this card. First of all they are finding that their kids are taking lunch to school. They are getting breakfast. The elders are not getting bashed because the younger people in the community are not trying to get money out of them because they do not have any. That is a good result in itself.
I can tell you that I feel really proud of myself as a taxpayer that I was feeding my son's ice habit, because that is where his social security benefit was going—to him and his mates! It makes me feel really proud that I was really a part of that! Every Australian is a part of that, because that is our tax and that is our money. I am not investing that money into the future of our kids, because that does not give our kids a future. That does not work. I watch my girlfriends that I grew up in public housing with, and their kids are not getting what they need and it is not just because they do not get much on welfare because their money is going elsewhere. I watch what comes into their households—and, I tell you what, organised crime is a very bad thing. The only people that are winning out of our taxpayers' money right now are those organised crime gangs out there.
You cannot tell me that somebody who is on welfare—that 20 per cent cash that goes into their proper bank account—has any more cash left over than 20 per cent. If you have, then you probably do not need to be on welfare. By the time you pay your rent with the little bit of welfare you get—there is your rent; you put food on the table for your kids; you are paying your electricity bill—then you should not have any more money than 20 per cent left over. You are getting 20 per cent of that in cash. You cannot tell me in 10 years time there will actually be cash around. Everybody will be on cards. That is where we are heading.
By feeding taxpayers' money into these people who already have issues what we are doing is feeding their habits, whether it is alcohol or drugs. It is absolutely disgusting. Fifty per cent of those on disability support pensions in Tasmania are on that because of drug and alcohol problems. And we are not doing anything about that. I absolutely commend Twiggy Forrest for what he has done. I have seen his 27 recommendations for creating parity, and I too—through the chair—like you, Senator Hanson, want that damn card rolled out to those kids under 18. I want it rolled out. I have seen kids out there. It was brought up in an ice committee last Friday—10 years of age and I said this and I have said it before: they are on ice pipes. What are mum and dad doing—that are on welfare? Where is the money coming from? You cannot tell me that kids that are under 18 years old should be spending that money on alcohol. They should not even be buying it. There is something terribly wrong.
We are not giving it to them as a gift. Welfare was never meant to be like that. Welfare is meant to help you when you are down and out. It is not meant to feed your habit. That is not on. And the sooner we get this card rolled out right across Australia for that first group, the better off we will be. That is the first generation we are going to start breaking. We are going to start breaking the cycle. Do you know how much heartache that is going to save families? Do you know how much money that is going to save the economy? Do you know how much that is going to lessen the impact on our public hospitals?
That is what it will do. But let me tell you what: I do not want to take responsibility for my taxpayers' money feeding somebody else's son's ice habit. That is not on. That is why I will not be supporting this.
It is time to change, and sitting here and talking about it, taking years to do it, is only making it worse. Like I said, the people who are really benefiting from this are the organised crime gangs out there, and they are having a nice time taking advantage of our kids. For goodness sake, the trials are working and are doing well. But I do not need to see a trial, because I spent long enough on a disability support pension, on welfare. I saw it when I lived in public housing; I grew up in the damn thing. I could already sniff and see what this card would do before it was even given out for trial. I thought: 'Beauty! This is something that's finally going to work; we just have to iron out the creases as we go.'
A trial was a good idea. But those trials are nearly over, so let's get on the front foot and keep the momentum going. Let's get it out for those kids who are 17 years and under, because they should not be buying drugs or spending taxpayers' money on alcohol. It is not on. They get 20 per cent in cash and they do not need any more than that. The other 80 per cent should be helping them out with buying clothes or whatever. Twenty per cent is more than enough, and I do not want the momentum stopped. The Greens like to talk about social justice, but social justice is not taking taxpayers' money and making the situation worse by giving it to people to go and buy their ice or drugs or alcohol with.
It is rampant out there. I live in Tasmania, one of the most disadvantaged places in Australia. It makes me cry every time I walk outside my office, which is right near Kmart and outside a taxi rank. Do you know what the taxi people say?. They feed in to me. I know it is getting worse. They know who the dealers are. They are taking people to pick them up. This is what is going on out there. This is an absolutely chronic issue, and we now need to take it on lock, stock and barrel. Twenty per cent is enough, and that is why I will not be supporting this.
It looks like the government does not want to make a comment. In summing up and addressing this I want to make a few comments. I am passionate about this because I have looked at the evidence. I have looked at the Northern Territory intervention and the final evaluation, and I urge anybody looking at this debate to read that report. It did not meet any of its projected outcomes. It failed.
I want to explore this issue of people 'feeling' that things do better, because that evaluation showed that people there felt that things were improving. But, when the evaluators compared the evidence of what was changing on the ground with another community outside of the NT, there was no difference. People felt it was better. In fact, it was not better. That is why I am so passionate about where the report says 'people felt this'. It is all very well to feel it. The psychology suggests that, because people saw money being spent and a trial being done, they thought things were better. But the evidence is not there. Senator Cameron said he will look very carefully at the second report—well, please look very carefully at the interim report. Please look very carefully at this, because I spent quite a lot of time going through this report and showing that the evidence is not there.
I want to make a comment to those who are worried about 'the cash that will go back into these communities if we go off this trial'. That comment horrifies me, because what you are saying is that we always knew that this trial was inevitable and it was going to be entrenched because putting cash back into the community was in fact going to have a devastating impact. I know there are problems in these communities, and I am desperate to solve them, but this is not the way to do it.
With that, I urge you to support this. In the future you will look back, like people have done with the NT, and say it does not work. Even though the government is continuing with the NT intervention, the evidence shows that it has not been working. Please disallow this, and let us look at what really works. I am as passionate as anybody else in this chamber about trying to find out what really works.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert to disallow the determination be agreed to.
Tonight I want to very briefly but very sincerely pay tribute to all of those who assisted selflessly during Cyclone Debbie, which ravaged parts of North Queensland in the past few days, and those who are still assisting in its aftermath. I cannot mention them all by name individually, as it would be impossible to do so because there are so many. Many who helped in their own quiet way will never be publically identified. We owe a real debt to all the emergency workers, police, fire rescue, SES, council workers, meteorologists, local radio presenters, neighbours, community groups and other countless helpers who did so much in their own way to help. It makes you proud to be an Australian to see the volunteers and those working beyond the call of duty to help with natural calamities that are unpredictable and unstoppable. Many people put their own personal safety and even their lives at risk to help others.
When driving from Ayr to Townsville airport this morning to come back to Canberra I was overwhelmed by the number of police, emergency, SES and fire rescue vehicles heading south but particularly by the constant stream of tradies' utes and four-wheel-drives with trailers, ladders, mobile workshops, a range of doors, gates and the like, and generators all heading south to help. I know from Yasi the reassurance of seeing Army convoys and helicopters heading into the affected areas. To know that the Defence Force is on the way is a real reassurance to those whose stress levels and equilibrium have been imbalanced by the events of the past 48 hours.
In Ayr, where I live and where the cyclone was originally tracking, we were very lucky. I want to thank and acknowledge all those friends, relatives and Facebook friends—many of whom I have never personally met—who sent messages of support, including, I am proud to say, almost every one of my coalition colleagues in this chamber and the Prime Minister. Believe me, in times of terror, it does help to know that others are thinking of you.
In Ayr, we missed it, thankfully, but I do feel for those friends and the residents of Bowen, Airlie Beach, Proserpine and Mackay who have borne the brunt of Cyclone Debbie. Having lived through a couple of cyclones in my lifetime, I can attest to the absolute terror one feels for oneself and loved ones as the gale-force winds increase and the howling of wind and rain and flying debris escalates to a nerve-wracking crescendo, buffeting one's home as one huddles terrified, usually in a blacked-out room, almost defenceless, waiting and hoping and praying. Unlike other calamities, cyclones are entirely unpredictable and unstoppable. There is nothing you can do but try to stay safe with your loved ones and pray. And Debbie was worse than many in that it was so slow moving, meaning that the increasing terror was drawn out like some form of heinous torture.
Cyclones are one small detriment of living in the North, in God's own country, I might say, and I know that the resilience of the people will shine through, as always, and that things will get back to normal quickly. The natural beauty of the North will quickly recuperate and tourists will shortly be again enjoying one of the seventh and, indeed, eighth wonders of the world, with the reef and the rainforests. The mines will crank up again, commerce will get back to normal, the farmers will harvest, and all of the wonderful services we have in the North will be business as usual.
We do feel for those who have lost homes and businesses and other property; the farmers in Proserpine and Mackay, in particular, who would have lost crops; and the tourist places that will suffer not only from the damage but from overinflated bad news. The Commonwealth and Queensland governments will help there. Insurance companies and banks will also be doing their bit.
Tonight, I think it is important that we acknowledge all those who have helped. If you are one of those thousands who will never be named individually but whose main preoccupation in the last few days has been helping others, please accept this on behalf of perhaps all Australians as our thanks and our grateful acknowledgement for what you have done.
Obviously, our commiserations go to those people in Queensland battling the storm. But today I want to speak about the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety. Today we convened in room 2S1 and conducted an awareness campaign in respect of road safety. We invited members of the coalition and the other parties in the parliament to come and make a pledge. Mr Llew O'Brien, the member for Wide Bay, is the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety. I want to acknowledge the work of a number of groups. One is the Australian Road Safety Foundation, with Russell White as its CEO. Donna Caley and Ariana Panettiere are also involved in the foundation, and its partner groups are Caltex and Suncorp. They are backing the Fatality Free Friday campaign, which is on 26 May. Since its inception in 2007, the Fatality Free Friday campaign has continued to expand its operation and is now recognised as Australia's only national community based road safety program. It has successfully fostered community ownership; it raises complex road safety issues; and it encourages those who can make a significant difference in reducing road trauma to do so. The campaign is more than just a single day. Its target is to have a Fatality Free Friday, and, ultimately, longer term community change. It is just one of the active groups in road safety.
Another active group in road safety is the SARAH Group. Peter Frazer, the president and founder of the SARAH Group, has made a personal tragedy into a campaign for road safety. He has done a fantastic job in bringing greater awareness of road safety. Their pledge is:
Drive as if my loved ones are on the road ahead;
Remove distractions, and never us my smartphone while at the wheel; and
I will be aware of, and take care of, vulnerable road users around me.
The SARAH Group is extremely active. They believe that each person's life is precious and can therefore never be ethically traded against traffic mobility. No person should be placed in harm's way simply because of poor policy, poor planning, poor maintenance or poor procedures. Each of us must strive to actively protect other road users, especially those road users involved in or assisting at a crash, breakdown or other incident. This is another really grassroots group promoting road safety. Mr Frazer informed me today that the New South Wales government will light up the Sydney Harbour Bridge in yellow for the National Road Safety Week and for the UN Global Road Safety Week starting on 7 May.
Another very active group in road safety is the Australian College of Road Safety led by Lachlan McIntosh, the president, and Claire Howe, the executive officer. They have put together a submission to all federal parliamentarians. Given your former career, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, these stats will come as no surprise to you. Twenty-five people die each week due to road accidents. There are 700 injuries. Each year the estimated cost to the economy is in excess of $32 billion. The Australian College of Road Safety makes a number of points. The first point is that the Australian College of Road Safety calls on all federal parliamentarians to unanimously reject the current increasing rate of road death and injury and commit to the ultimate goal of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries. The second point is that the Australian College of Road Safety calls on the federal government to task the Productivity Commission with undertaking a full inquiry into the impact of road trauma on Australia's productivity and the national investment of policy decisions required to achieve the nation's policy goals of safe road transport systems. The third point is that the Australian College of Road Safety calls on the federal government to make the publication of targeted safety star ratings on national road networks a condition of Commonwealth investment in the network from 2017-18 onwards and to undertake a full policy review in 2017-18 on how to leverage greater safety results from the current investment in road transport.
The final point, which I am going to expand upon, is: ensure all new vehicles—cars, vans, motorcycles, buses and trucks—are equipped with the world's best practice safety technology and meet world practice crash worthiness. The reality is that imported cars to Australia have safety features removed. They need to be in place if they go into the European Union or the United States but, because we are in Asia and we import cars, they despec them, essentially.
One of those pieces of technology is autonomous breaking technology. The chilling reality is that a couple of the terrorist catastrophes or the like in Europe involved trucks. One was fitted with autonomous breaking technology and that mitigated the disaster; it mitigated the number of people that that terrorist could run over. The other truck was not fitted with autonomous breaking technology and the casualties were five times greater.
We have a technology that stops people from running into each other and running over each other. It is mandatory in the US. It is mandatory in the European Union. But in Australia we have not made it mandatory. That is an absolute policy failing. There should not be any difference between any party in this parliament on road safety. We all use the roads. We share the roads with our families and we share the roads with other Australians. We all want to get home safely at night. Why is there not a policy imperative here? This is technology that the best placed great safety investigators are saying works.
We will no longer make motor cars in Australia at the end of, probably, this year. The last manufacturing plant will close. There is no impediment to legislate to ensure that all Australians are given the opportunity to drive the safest cars in the world. Autonomous breaking technology and lane-assist functions are two well-researched and well-established and mandated technologies in the European Union and the US, which should be in place in Australia. If they were in place in Australia they would reduce the 25 deaths per week. They would reduce the 700 injuries per week.
It is an absolute mystery to me why our department of transport and ministers—of both sides—have not acted on this. I think the Hon. Darren Chester is an excellent minister. He is a person who listens to people in the road safety area but I do not see any action. If the boot were on the other foot and the Hon. Anthony Albanese were the minister, I would have no hesitation in saying exactly the same things I am saying now. We need to mandate these proven technologies to save Australian lives, to stop Australians from being injured, to give some relief to those emergency services people who Senator Macdonald spoke about so eloquently. They would not need to be out every day and every night on the weekends picking people up off the streets in car accidents that could have been avoided.
This technology should be mandated. The department should be moving to do this, and there is no impediment that I can see. The Australian manufacturers may not have been able to comply with this requirement, but they are not even going to be here. We will import and sell a million cars a year, in Australia, each year—over a million cars—and we have the capability, if we mandate this technology, to get into the second-hand car market, because if the major fleet buyers insist on it they transition to the second-hand car market and we will rejuvenate the fleet in Australia.
There are states, like my own state, where the vehicle fleet is older, but we know that electronic stability control has now penetrated right down. ABS has also penetrated right down. If we have autonomous breaking technology and lane assist we will be doing smart stuff in the 21st century. We deserve it. Every road user deserves it, and the most vulnerable road users deserve it. Some of the cars marketed at the lower end, in the $20,000 or $23,000 price range, like the VW Golf—and that is not an ad for VW—have autonomous breaking technology, so your most vulnerable users, the P-platers and the like, will be protected from that moment of inattention or distraction and will not have an incident involving injury or death.
Tonight I want to give voice to the many hundreds of innocent men, women and children who are detained in Australia's offshore detention regimes on Manus Island and Nauru and also many of those who are detained in Australia in our onshore detention regime.
I will start with Manus and Nauru. Let us be clear about this: Australia is deliberately exposing people to harm. As a result, we have seen people murdered. We have seen people set themselves on fire. We have seen people stitch their lips together. We have seen children sexually abused. Indefinite detention of the kind that is still going on, on Manus Island and Nauru, has caused—and, tragically, continues to cause—massive psychological and physical harm to people who have done no wrong, people who have broken no law, people who have done nothing other than reach out a hand to Australia, asking for its help and seeking its protection.
The Australian government continues to flout international law. It continues to turn boats around at sea, to send desperate people to meet an unknown fate at sea or straight back into the hands of regimes they are fleeing, to arbitrary imprisonment, to torture or even to death. It is now 11 months since the PNG Supreme Court declared Australia's Manus Island detention centre illegal, and that centre remains open. Last month, the forced deportation of asylum seekers on Manus Island began. This is despite the well-known legal flaws in Papua New Guinea's refugee status determination process. As Professor Jane McAdam, the Director of the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, has written:
PNG's refugee status determination process falls far short of the standards required by international law. PNG law itself does not contain any protection against refoulement …
She has also written:
… PNG's refugee status determination process is inconsistent with international law in a number of significant respects …
But it is not just Professor McAdam and other Australian legal experts. The UNHCR has noted that Papua New Guinea's migration regulation:
… incorrectly applies the limited exclusion provisions of the Refugee Convention to ordinary criminal matters more properly dealt with under PNG criminal law, which could lead to wrongful denial of refugee status.
And yet the Australian government is complicit in forcibly deporting people from Papua New Guinea on the basis that they have failed a fundamentally flawed refugee determination assessment. It is an utter disgrace. It is a stain on every man, woman and child in this country that Australia continues to enable the forced deportation of people from Manus Island. At any time—maybe even as I stand here speaking—there could be a person or people being handcuffed on Manus Island, frogmarched out of the detention centre there and sent back to the very countries they have fled, to goodness knows what fate. And yet this government, with the support of the Labor Party, is silent. In fact, this government is enabling that shocking treatment. How many people have been deported? We do not know, because the government will not tell us. Where have they been sent? We do not know, because the government will not tell us. Does the government plan to forcibly deport more people back to the regimes they were fleeing in fear of their lives? We do not know, because the government will not tell us. And what of the fate of the people who have been forcibly deported over the last few weeks? We do not know, because the government will not tell us.
Amnesty International, an impeccably regarded international human rights organisation, says that, on Nauru, Australia's detention system was 'explicitly designed to inflict incalculable damage on hundreds of women, men and children'. Amnesty International has also found that conditions on Nauru are 'a deliberate and systematic regime of neglect and cruelty' and amount to torture under international law. And the government have not ever rebutted that claim. They have simply denied it and they have offered nothing in terms of a substantive rebuttal of a claim that Australia is torturing people on Manus Island. We have also had Mr Juan Mendez, a former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, concluding that conditions on Manus Island 'violated the right of the asylum seekers, including children, to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment'. It is an utter disgrace the way Australia is treating people on Manus Island and Nauru. We have a duty of care to these people. They sought our help, and we have abandoned them and, worse, we are overseeing their torture.
Let us remember Reza Barati, who was murdered on Manus Island in 2014. Let us remember Hamid Kehazaei, who died of septicaemia which developed when he did not receive proper treatment for a cut to his foot. Let us remember Fazal Chegani, who died in suspicious circumstances on Christmas Island. Let us remember Omid Masoumali, who set himself on fire in Nauru last year. Let us remember Faysal Ishak Ahmed, who died on Christmas Eve after a seizure and a fall and who had been ill for months beforehand. Let us remember Saeed—not his real name—someone who right now we believe to be in the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre facing imminent deportation back to Iraq, despite being in ill health; someone who fears for his life should he be forcibly deported back to Iraq; a stateless person seeking asylum. I want to congratulate Mums 4 Refugees, Love Makes a Way, the Close the Camps action collective and the New South Wales Young Greens, who right now are holding a vigil outside Villawood and who have campaigned so strongly and so passionately for the person we know as Saeed.
One day there will come a reckoning in this country for what Australia is doing—for the torture, for the indefinite detention, for the refoulement, for the turn-backs, for the harm that we are causing to men, women and children indefinitely detained, people who sought our help and people on whom we turned our collective backs. There will be a reckoning, there will be a royal commission, there will be apologies and there will be reparations, but the tragedy is that they will come far too late for far too many people.
Senate adjourned at 19:51