by leave—I move:
That, pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Senate refers to the Court of Disputed Returns the following questions—
(a) whether, by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution, there is a vacancy in the representation of the Australian Capital Territory in the Senate for the place for which Katy Gallagher was returned;
(b) if the answer to Question (a) is "yes", by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
(c) what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
(d) what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.
I understand a copy of the motion is now being circulated in the chamber.
In relation to the motion, I have some brief remarks. Senator Gallagher has today requested that her citizenship status be referred to the High Court to bring an end to the attacks on her that are undermining the legitimacy and dignity of this chamber. In taking this step, she and the Labor Party do not in any way resile from the position we have taken since day one: that Senator Gallagher has taken all the steps required under the Australian Constitution to qualify to stand for election as a member of this parliament. But it is now clear the attacks on her will not stop, that these attacks are undermining the dignity and standing of this parliament, and the only way to bring an end to the attacks and restore the standing and dignity of this Senate is to have the High Court settle this once and for all.
The Labor Party takes this step notwithstanding the fact that we have compelling legal advice that Senator Gallagher is entirely qualified to be a member of this parliament. That is because, unlike some in the coalition, she took all necessary steps required to renounce any claim she may have held to dual citizenship. This is in stark contrast to Mr Joyce, Mr Alexander and former Senators Nash and Parry, who never took any steps to check if they were eligible. Like others, and unlike those members and senators, Senator Gallagher met the express test set out by the High Court in Re Canavan at paragraph 72, which states:
Where it can be demonstrated that the person has taken all steps that are reasonably required by the foreign law to renounce his or her citizenship and within his or her power, the constitutional imperative—
that an Australian citizen not be irremediably prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government—
is engaged.
There is absolutely no doubt Senator Gallagher applied to renounce any entitlement to British citizenship she may have had well before nominations closed for the 2016 election.
In fact, Senator Gallagher has provided the Senate with advice from Adrian Berry of the London bar, a leading expert on British citizenship law, that not only did she take all reasonable steps but she went further: she took all necessary steps to renounce British citizenship according to British law. In other words, Senator Gallagher could not have done any more to renounce her British citizenship in good time before that election was even called. The British Home Office took 118 days to process her renunciation, and I note in passing that Mr Alexander was recently able to have his renunciation processed within one week. It is not within Senator Gallagher's power to determine the time it takes a foreign government to process her renunciation. Labor is therefore confident that Senator Gallagher is constitutionally entitled. As Professor George Williams has stated this morning in The Sydney Morning Herald:
… it is difficult to see the court disqualifying a person because the bureaucracy of another country has taken months to process an application form. There is a low risk of these members offending section 44.
It is not just the case that Senator Gallagher's eligibility is beyond question; so too is her integrity. Those opposite, and everyone in this place, know it. It is now incumbent on the government to follow Labor's lead and ensure that, after it has lost two senators, there are no further doubts over the standing of its senators. Labor does not believe in using this chamber for partisan referrals. For this reason, and in light of Senator Sinodinos's medical circumstances, Labor will not be seeking to refer Senator Sinodinos at this point. However, we note there is significant legal contention about his citizenship status that the government and the chamber may need to consider in due course. For now, we leave that for the government to reflect upon.
The government will be supporting this motion. The government does not reflect upon the integrity of Senator Gallagher. I want to make that very clear. We do not. We do, of course, reflect upon the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten. There is one reason, and one reason alone, for the Senate—
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Cameron!
Mr President, given the gravity of this matter, I would ask that you be quite firm in ensuring that I am allowed to be heard in silence without interjection from Senator Cameron.
Honourable senators interjecting—
I call all senators to order. Senator Brandis will be heard.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Cameron! Senator Brandis will be heard in the same silence that Senator Wong was heard in.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
I didn't hear any other noise around the chamber, Senator Collins. Senator Brandis will be heard in the same silence I heard Senator Wong in.
There is one reason, and only one reason, why a motion under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act should be passed by this Senate, and that is that the Senate is of the view that, on the facts disclosed to it, it is appropriate to refer a senator to the Court of Disputed Returns. Section 376 gives statutory effect to section 47 of the Constitution, which provides:
Until the Parliament otherwise provides—
which it has done by section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act—
any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.
So, let us be very clear: this motion is being considered by the Senate and, given that it is being moved by the Leader of the Opposition and supported by the government, will be passed, because a question respecting the qualification of a senator, Senator Gallagher, has arisen. The reason it's necessary to make that point is that this procedure should not be used and cannot properly be used to provide political cover. I do not reflect at all on the integrity of Senator Gallagher. I don't doubt for a moment the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements she has made to the Senate. But the assertion that has come from Senator Gallagher and Senator Wong that Senator Gallagher plainly is not disqualified prejudges the very issue which the Senate, by this motion, has asked the High Court to determine. It cannot be right that the Senate is being asked to support a motion to refer a question relating to the qualification of a senator on the basis that there is no question. By passing this motion, as we will, the Senate is plainly determining, under section 47 of the Constitution and section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, that there is a question. It's not a question that reflects upon Senator Gallagher or her integrity or her circumstances, but I just make the point, because it's important to stress it: this motion places the issues that Senator Gallagher and Senator Wong have asserted before the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. It is for that court, not the opinion of the Labor Party's legal advisers, to dispose of the matter now.
The law as set down in the case of Re Canavan and Re Joyce and others has been settled by the court. The court's reading of section 44(i) of the Constitution is as clear as it is unforgiving. Those from the government and the crossbench who fell foul of section 44(i) didn't do anything wrong, and Senator Gallagher has not done anything wrong, but it is necessary that reasonable steps be taken. One of the issues that goes to the question of reasonableness is the question of timeliness. Even if it be accepted that Senator Gallagher took every necessary step, that does not dispose of the legal question, because the next question that arises is whether every necessary step was taken in a sufficiently timely way. And on that question will the issue of reasonable steps depend, on which I make no further comment in this speech, because it is not a matter for me or this chamber but for the court.
Finally, let us see now whether, in the other place, those Labor members of parliament—the member for Braddon, the member for Longman, the member for Fremantle and the member for Batman—take the same course. Because as is clear, manifest, on the face of the declarations that they have lodged with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, they had not renounced their dual British citizenship at the time of the 2016 election. In the case of at least two of them, we know that they did not initiate that process until after the writs for the election had been issued, notwithstanding that they had been endorsed more than a year earlier. The question that arises is when Mr Shorten knew about their circumstances that have now been disclosed. I'll say nothing more about it for the moment, but the government does expect that Mr Shorten will take the step in the House of Representatives that has been taken by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and refer those four members to the Court of Disputed Returns because, if he fails to do so, that raises very serious questions about Mr Shorten's own integrity.
I wasn't planning on addressing this issue, but the speech just then from Senator Brandis has compelled me to make a contribution to this debate. Firstly, we will be supporting this referral. I want to acknowledge the steps taken by Senator Gallagher to come forward and the Labor Party for referring Senator Gallagher. We think that's appropriate. But let's just name what's going on here. We've got two classes of politicians. We've got some members of the Labor Party who took steps, took legal advice, and at the time were satisfied that that was enough to disqualify themselves as dual citizens and to mean that they were eligible to stand. Then we've got members of the government who took no steps—who sat in this chamber, knowing they were dual citizens, and took no steps. In fact, they were forced, after the High Court decision, to come clean, like the former President of the Senate and like Minister Nash. She came here at a minute to midnight, as we were about to go home, to put her version of history on the table. It is now clear that she was sitting here, knowing she was ineligible, and did nothing about it. The rank hypocrisy from the Attorney-General is remarkable here. We have members of the government who took no steps, and they've now given the middle finger to the parliament by not disclosing the relevant information in the disclosure form.
I accept that the High Court needs to make a determination about those Labor members who sought advice and were told that initiating the renunciation process was enough to make sure that they weren't dual citizens. That was based on precedent. I understand that we do need to get some clarity on that. It's important not just for this parliament but for future parliaments to know at what point the test for reasonable steps applies. And that's why we're going to support this referral. That's why we would support referrals in the lower house.
But don't come in here, Senator Brandis, and lecture this Senate about your role in this, as though somehow the Labor Party have put themselves in the same category as your ministers. They haven't, because what we've seen in this Senate is one party where members have been dual citizens, have taken no steps, have been ineligible and have continued to sit in this chamber and in cabinet. When this first occurred, we had Minister Canavan standing up and saying, 'Given the circumstances, I can no longer sit as a minister.' When it occurred to Minister Nash and, indeed, Minister Joyce, a completely different test was applied. For some reason, they were able to continue in their roles as ministers. We had the President of the Senate issuing orders to the High Court, knowing that he himself was ineligible. The reality is that this government has shown itself to be without integrity and decency and to be hypocritical. To be standing up there and lecturing the opposition as somehow having behaved in a way that is comparable with this government is appalling.
I make the exception, of course, for former Senator Feeney. Former Senator Feeney is in a category of his own and is now a member of the lower house. The questions about Mr Feeney are: when did he know about what had occurred and when did he know that he didn't have documentation to certify that he was not a dual citizen? Clearly, if it's taken him five months to arrive at this position—and he has been dragged kicking and screaming—I think Mr Feeney is a special case. I think most people would recognise he's a very, very special case, and I think the people of Batman will make it very, very clear that they think he's a very special case.
Mr Feeney has shown himself to be completely lacking in integrity by sitting on information for five months, but members of the government have applied a completely different standard to members of their own team, to ministers, who have been dual citizens, who have taken no steps and have now, through this disclosure process, effectively said, 'We're not going to provide you with the information that you need to have some certainty that we're not dual citizens.' I wasn't planning on making a contribution. I do acknowledge it's been a difficult time for Senator Gallagher. Again, I want to congratulate her on coming forward and the referral, but, please, Attorney-General, next time spare us the sanctimonious hypocrisy that you've just provided the Senate with.
Like Senator Di Natale, I wasn't intending on making a contribution, but I've got to call out that last contribution for the poppycock that it was—absolute hypocrisy itself from the Leader of the Greens. We've got a situation where Senator Di Natale is saying everybody is acting with integrity except for members of the government that he opposes—oh, and except for this other bloke called Mr Feeney, who the Greens almost certainly will be running a candidate against in any subsequent by-election. It is all for political purposes. To everybody up there listening, to everybody watching, it's all theatre for Senator Di Natale. It's got nothing to do with integrity, nothing to do with what should happen and what is the right thing to do—it's all a political opportunity that the Greens now see in the seat of Batman.
All power to you, Senator Di Natale, and good luck down there in Melbourne if it comes off. But, I must say, your two classes, or your two buckets, don't make any sense either. Here in the Nationals party, when we found out we referred ourselves. Senator Gallagher will go to the High Court now, and that is the right and proper course of action, but let's be very clear that Senator Gallagher apparently became aware that she had issues with her citizenship in April last year, while she sat as a senator, and did absolutely nothing about it. She complains about the time taken by the British bureaucracy to get back to her. If she had done what we did in the Nationals party and had a press conference and told the world about it, I bet you the British bureaucracy would have come back a bit quicker than 118 days. They would have, because she was a sitting senator and they would have acted. But she did not do that. The facts will be established by the High Court—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Canavan, please resume your seat. Order on my left.
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
Order! Senator Carr. I am having trouble hearing the minister.
Senator Wong interjecting—
There will opportunities for others to participate in this debate. Until there is silence I am not going to let this debate continue. This is a matter of some importance to the Senate. Could that be kept in mind as we conduct the debate? Senator Wong, there are matters subject to debate and people have an opportunity to participate in those on all sides of the chamber. Senator Canavan.
Thank you, Mr President. The record shows that, when any of the Nationals members or senators have been caught up in these issues, as soon as that information has come to light—
That's a lie. That's a lie.
Mr President, on a point of order. Senator Wong should withdraw that interjection that Senator Canavan has told a lie. I was hoping that this debate, given the seriousness of it, would be conducted with decorum and courtesy. All of the interjections have come from the other side.
Mr President, on the point of order: the assertion that Nationals senators immediately disclosed is a lie. It is a lie. And Senator Nash's evidence and the evidence before the High Court demonstrates that.
Senator Wong, that is a debating point. I didn't hear the interjection Senator Brandis referred to.
I said it was a lie when he asserted that all Nationals disclosed as soon as they knew. That has been demonstrated in the evidence before the High Court, including the evidence in relation to his case.
Government senators interjecting—
And I too wish for some decorum—you should control your senators, Senator Brandis. I will take your ruling, Mr President.
I didn't hear the exact words that were used. What were the exact words used?
If you wish me to withdraw the word 'lie', if it assists the chamber I will do so.
Yes, that would assist the chamber greatly. Thank you, Senator Wong. And I will ask senators, if they wish to say something in this debate, to cease interjecting and to take the opportunity to participate. This is a matter of some gravity and standing of the Senate, and if we could conduct ourselves accordingly, that would be helpful.
It is a matter of record that as soon as the Nationals senators and member became aware of the legal advice on their situations, they did come clean. We all in this place have decisions to make, and it's easy to make the right decision when the consequences are good for you. It is much more difficult to make the right decision when the consequences could be bad. What we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party is that they have run a protection racket for their members and senators, because to do otherwise would potentially have bad consequences for their political circumstances. Now, tough decisions have been made by the government—to go to a by-election in a place like Bennelong, where we could lose our majority. But it was the right decision. And it is now incumbent on everybody, now that the High Court has clarified this situation—the law is clear—to do the right thing. It may mean that people lose jobs. It may mean that governments or oppositions see changes in the power balance in this place. But the right thing is to refer any matters to the High Court and to clear it up.
We in this place have tried to do that. There have been difficult circumstances for the government. But instead of trying to clarify the situation for the Australian people, instead of providing certainty for this parliament as soon as possible, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have played political games, not delivered what is in the national interest, which is to clear up this area of law. Now that this referral has taken place, it will be an opportunity to get to the bottom of it. And perhaps the legal advice the Labor Party has received will prevail. But that is a matter for the High Court now. That is a matter for the appropriate body to determine, and the sooner that can happen the better, so we can get back onto the job we are here to do for the Australian people.
Like Senator Di Natale, I had told Senator Wong that I did not intend to take part in this discussion today. But if we're talking about hypocrisy, while Bill Shorten sure gets some of it, Senator Canavan, you cop the golden medal, for God's sake! I mean, you did the right thing—stood there alongside the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General stood and said, 'Yes, Senator Canavan will stand down from his ministerial responsibilities,' and that was the fair thing to do. But then, when Barnaby Joyce gets ups, oh no, he can stay. And Senator Nash: you were right, Senator Di Natale; at five minutes to midnight, Senator Nash snuck in here, when we were all going home, and dropped her bucket. The Nationals did not come clean earlier, did not come clean when they should have, and neither did other members of the government. We had Senator Fifield—and Senator Cameron has asked questions about this, and so have I—knowing for weeks that the President of the Senate, Senator Parry, had doubts about his own citizenship. Senator Fifield kept his mouth shut for weeks. Also, according to the reports, other senators in the government knew. Senator Fifield, who is the boss of government business, didn't say to Prime Minister Turnbull, 'Houston, we've got a problem.' For weeks he didn't say a word.
Then there was the Attorney-General, who for 24 hours didn't say a word to the PM, because he was in transit. Haven't you heard of Skype, Senator Brandis? And I mentioned Senator Nash. I say this with a bit of passion, because I was the original target, before the dominoes started to fall. Mr John Cameron, I think his name is—a constitutional nerd in Perth—decided, on a whim, 'I think I'll do something about section 44'—because it was a mess, and it is a mess. And dual citizens should be allowed to be here in some capacity. But he went after it. He thought, 'Hinch runs a small party; he won't have cleaned his act up, so we'll get him,' and he got Scott Ludlam on the way through. The Greens behaved with dignity—while we're talking about hypocrisy. The Greens got up—Ludlam got up, and then Senator Waters got up—and said, 'We resign.' They did it with class, they did it with dignity, and nobody's done much of it since.
Senator Gallagher is offering herself up to the High Court, which is the way it should be. The High Court must make these rulings. But, in the case of Senator Canavan—hypocrisy. Whatever happened to, 'My mother ate my homework?' What happened to that defence?
High Court lawyer David Bennett, former Solicitor-General—he was my lawyer in the High Court, so I know him very well—dumped the mother-ate-my-homework defence because he knew it wouldn't fly. I think there's a case here for Senator Canavan to be referred to the High Court again. They went for another defence. Anyway, I'll leave it to the High Court. I won't do what Prime Minister Turnbull did and say, 'And so the High Court shall rule.' I'll leave it to the High Court. That's where it should be and that's where it should stay. The sooner we get this over and done with and come back clean next year the better.
I want to briefly contrast the honesty and dignity that Senator Gallagher brought to this debate this morning with the very quick situation that developed under the Attorney-General to try to make this a political issue. For Senator Canavan to get up and say what he did was absolutely outrageous. I agree with you, Senator Hinch. The first defence from Senator Canavan was to blame his mother—'My mum did it, not me'—and that disappeared. And we had the lecture from the Attorney-General about the right thing to do. I'm not sure if the Attorney-General ever gave the Prime Minister the same lecture. Maybe he should walk across to the Prime Minister now and give him the same lecture. The Prime Minister would then have no option but to refer Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg, Nola Marino, Julia Banks, Alex Hawke and Michael McCormack from the lower house and Senator Arthur Sinodinos. None of these members have complied with the agreement that was reached, whereas everyone else in the parliament has complied and provided details of their ancestry and their renunciation of any foreign citizenship. None of these MPs have done that. In fact, Jason Falinski argued that he had advice, but he wouldn't provide that advice. Josh Frydenberg says he has received advice from Hungarian, Polish and Australian legal people, but he hasn't provided that advice. Nola Marino says that she has got legal advice. Have we seen that? No, we have not. Julia Banks, Alex Hawke, Michael McCormack and Arthur Sinodinos have all provided an unconvincing letter from the Greek embassy but refused to provide any advice.
I think the hypocrisy that we've seen here demonstrates that the government sees this as an opportunity to kick a political opponent. We know how they have dealt with other matters in this place when it comes to Senator Cash. I contrast the position that Senator Gallagher has taken with the position Senator Cash took in this place to mislead the parliament on at least five occasions and to provide no reasons for her unacceptable conduct as a minister. The Prime Minister should move immediately and refer to the High Court these MPs who have not complied with the agreement between the political parties in this place. It is unacceptable for any of them not to take the same position that Senator Gallagher has. For Senator Canavan to come in here and descend to the level that he did is in complete contrast to the integrity that he did show when he stood aside from the cabinet. But it again demonstrates that Mr Joyce showed no integrity by sitting in cabinet as the Deputy Prime Minister and acting leader of this country when he was not eligible to sit in the House of Representatives.
So I take view that there is a challenge here for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to accept this challenge and refer all those members and Senator Sinodinos to the High Court. It is absolutely unacceptable that it is now being left to individuals to put up, because the agreement was that there would be documents provided, that there would be forms filled in and that there would be legal positions put forward. That has not been done. But it has been done by Senator Gallagher, who, again, came in here dignified, honest and was then subjected to a fake argument that people were not going to put her under any pressure. Then a political argument to try and smear other politicians was presented in this place, when the biggest hypocrisy comes from the government, when the biggest hypocrisy comes from the Prime Minister. Maybe this Prime Minister will grow a bit of a backbone and stop being such a jellyback, stop being manipulated by every right-wing idiot in this place, and stand up, do the right thing, refer these members and bring this terrible time for the parliament to an end.
This is a government in crisis. This is a government in chaos. This is a rabble of a government that cannot lead effectively. All these coalition members are under a cloud. Either they should fess up, do the right thing and refer themselves or the Prime Minister should take some leadership, refer them and make sure that we as a parliament can move on. This parliament is in absolute chaos under this government. This parliament is, I think, more and more being marked down by the Australian public because of the lack of leadership from the Prime Minister and the lack of integrity from some of those on the other side. Every one that I've mentioned—Jason Falinski, Josh Frydenberg, Nola Merino, Julia Banks, Alex Hawke, Michael McCormack and Arthur Sinodinos—should be joining Senator Gallagher in the High Court. At least Senator Gallagher showed the courage, commitment and integrity to refer herself.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that a question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
My contribution in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 revolves very much around the fact that the proposition is to abolish the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and absorb it into this new Australian Financial Complaints Authority. Whilst the opposition doesn't have concerns about the ombudsman services being combined, as I have previously indicated, we do have major concerns about the changes to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.
Some of these concerns were raised by Helen Davis, the chair of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, during the committee's inquiry, and I thank her for her contribution. I would like to also say that this lends support to the Labor view that the tribunal should continue to stand alone. The CPSU's submission to the committee's inquiry is also very informative. They pointed to the fact that the proposed scheme will reduce consumer protections and rights in relation to superannuation matters. They also indicated that the focus of the SCT does not address the widespread community concerns about the operations of the financial services sector. They make the very cogent point that radical changes are being proposed for the superannuation industry, which has not seen anything close to the litany of scandals that have beset the finance sector. In other submissions to the committee's inquiry, I note a number of other reservations to the changes being made.
In closing, I would like to thank Senator Gallagher for her work in this area. Obviously, her highly principled actions this morning speak volumes for her integrity. I also know that Senator Gallagher is passionate about the need for the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to continue with its functions, as am I. I also thank Senator McAllister, who acted as deputy chair of the committee for a time. We believe that the integrity of our super system is too valuable to risk and we do not support the weakening of this body.
This is not my first speech. I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017. The bill amends the Corporations Act to establish a new dispute resolution body, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, to ensure that consumers and small businesses have access to free, fast and binding dispute resolution. The bill comes on the back of the Ramsay review of 2016, which recommends that significant reform is needed in the disputes resolution process. It also implements the recommendation of the Carnell report to establish a small business disputes resolution one-stop-shop to hear credit disputes for amounts up to $5 million. The AFCA will replace the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Credit and Investments Ombudsman and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, but it will have additional statutory powers.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, will be responsible for ensuring that AFCA meets the standards set out in the legislation. The bill will provide ASIC with the ability to set regulatory requirements that AFCA must meet, and the power to compel AFCA to comply with the standards set out in the legislation. Under the AFCA, consumers and small businesses will be able to have their disputes with financial firms heard and determined by AFCA, at no cost. Under the current system, it is difficult to achieve comparable outcomes for customers with similar complaints, because different bodies handle the complaints.
In his second reading speech, the minister stated that the bill forms part of the government's broader commitment to ensuring that banks and other financial institutions are held to account when they fail to meet community expectations. Insofar as this bill does this, I applaud the government's efforts and support this legislation. My only concern is that the role of AFCA may be too limited, particularly in the size of debts that may be considered. Many farmers with debts exceeding $5 million find themselves in trouble with ruthless banks, and I am concerned that they will not be able to access the benefits of this new complaints authority, or that its rulings may be not be sufficiently strong to overcome the vested power of usury. I, and many colleagues from the bush, have heard hundreds of heart-rending stories of how family farms have been stolen by deceptive and amoral lenders. Rural borrowers have faced unconscionable treatment by banks, which have tricked them into overdrafts, based on phoney, inflated valuations, only to have those same farms seized when lenders subsequently revalued the property in order to create an unsustainable debt-to-equity ratio. We have heard of numerous cases where banks sought to foreclose on properties on which repayments were fully paid up to date, claiming so-called 'anticipatory breaches', using fictitious future projections of reduced income.
If these same lending practices were extended to big-city home borrowers, hundreds of thousands of families who are fully up to date on mortgages would lose their homes and there would be rioting in the streets. It is only the fact that the farmers who are victims of usury are in remote locations and small in number that their hardship and misery are hidden from the wider population. This is along with the waves of suicides that follow the loss of properties that have been in families for generations.
Because of my concern to ensure that this bill does, effectively, help rural borrowers in these dire straits, I will be supporting the government's amendment that calls for a review of AFCA 18 months after it's established. This amendment will require the minister to commission an independent review of the effectiveness of the AFCA scheme regarding rural debts. The aim of this review will be to consider the limit on the value of claims established by the bill and to consider the effectiveness and fairness of remedies provided by the authority once it commences operation, particularly considering feedback from complainants. Since a proposal for an 18-month review of the effectiveness of this authority is entirely consistent with the stated intent of this bill, I strongly encourage all senators to support the government's amendment.
The bill we're debating today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017, arises from the Turnbull government's policy to set up a one-stop shop for consumers' complaints about financial services. In doing so, the bill combines three existing external dispute resolution schemes, the Financial Ombudsman Service, FOS; the Credit and Investments Ombudsman, CIO; and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, SCT. The new body will be known as the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA. For the FOS and CIO, this is simply a merging and rebranding of the two existing services.
We, of course, welcome higher monetary thresholds for disputes that can be heard. But the government is not proposing any new or additional powers that the existing dispute resolution bodies don't already have. The bill also purports to copy the powers of the SCT into the AFCA. However, as the AFCA will be a private company limited by guarantee, this bill will result in reduced consumer protections for superannuation disputes. The chair of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, Helen Davis, said:
I don't think it would be true to say, in relation to super, that it's a rebranding exercise. Arguably, it's quite a significant change for superannuation, specifically in terms of the external dispute resolution. It goes from a statutory body to a non-statutory body. It moved from a specialist body to a one-stop-shop body.
There are many important differences between the SCT and the proposed AFCA that stakeholders say will result in reduced protections. Their bill does not retain appeal rights that are currently available for the administrative decisions of the SCT. The SCT has the power to require information shared at the initial review stage to be kept confidential, which can include highly sensitive personal information. The SCT has an explicit statutory power to cancel the membership of a life policy fund if it finds the conduct relating to the selling of that fund was unfair or unreasonable. There is no limit on the value of the claim that the SCT is allowed to hear and, as a private body, the AFCA is not subject to freedom-of-information claims.
The government claims its reason for shutting down the SCT is due to delays in its resolution of complaints, but this is somewhat hypocritical when the delays have clearly been caused by the funding and staff cuts, at the SCT, inflicted by this government. Another good argument to retain the SCT is that it is a specialist body with skilled and professional staff. Superannuation can be a very complex area, requiring specialists and technical skills. While there is a significant overlap in the types of complaints received by the FOS and the CIO, this is not true of the complaints dealt with by these bodies and the SCT.
To back up my comments about the retention of the SCT as a separate body, I refer to the additional comments of Labor senators submitted to the Senate inquiry into this bill. As well as outlining the arguments I just mentioned, Labor senators said:
No persuasive evidence was received during this inquiry that demonstrated that the SCT's arrangement was unsuitable, apart from its funding level.
So, I've yet to hear a persuasive argument from those opposite about why the SCT should not be retained in its present form, albeit with the funding cuts reversed, so it can deal with the current backlog of complaints.
Labor does not support the abolition of the SCT, and we will be moving an amendment to this bill to retain the SCT as a separate statutory body. Should Labor's amendments to retain the SCT be supported, we are left with a bill that, as I said, will essentially be a rebranding exercise. It is certainly no substitute for re-election on addressing the poor conduct of the banks. It is no substitute for the royal commission, for which Labor has been calling for 18 months and which this government has now belatedly announced. And, while the government claimed to be taking action to address the numerous examples of inappropriate financial advice, insurance claims that are unfairly declined, loan fraud, irresponsible lending and cover-ups, more stories continue to emerge from victims and whistleblowers even now. I'm sure every member and senator in this place would have at least one story, if not several, of a constituent who has fallen victim to misconduct by banks or financial institutions.
Let me tell you just one of my stories. This is a story about a Tasmanian couple who approached my office for help. Rather than use their real names, I'll call them John and Mary. John and Mary applied for a loan through a mortgage lender. When the lender met with them at their home, he appeared to be in a hurry and did not ask for any financial details. He just sought personal details such as names, dates of birth and driver's licence numbers. When John and Mary asked the lender about including their financial details on the form they were told that they would fill in the rest later. A few years after being granted the loan, they obtained copies of their application forms, only to find their financial information had been completely manufactured. The application stated that the couple owned a small business and also showed that they were both drawing an income from the business. John and Mary had actually stopped working in the business four years prior, when the business they leased was sold. Even when the business had been performing well, they had only ever drawn half the salary that was reported on their form. The application form also significantly overinflated the equity in their business. In total, John and Mary counted 78 fabricated facts that were added to the forms without their consent or knowledge after their signatures were obtained.
This is a clear breach of the Code of Banking Practice, which provides that:
Before we offer or give you a credit facility (or increase an existing credit facility), we will exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker in selecting and applying our credit assessment methods and in forming our opinion about your ability to repay it.
John and Mary lodged a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service, but their complaint was dismissed. Without the protection of the FOS their only option was to seek legal redress. But as low-income earners—one doing casual work and another one on a pension—they could not afford a lawyer. As for legal aid, John recently told my office, 'No legal aid lawyer in their right mind would take on the banks.'
The mortgage lending industry may claim that the issues faced by victims like John and Mary have been addressed by the industry, and this is something we're continually told by the financial services industry. But time and time again, new claims arise. The Australian reported just last week that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC, is investigating several large and small lenders for fabrication of documents. The week before that, National Australia Bank sacked 20 bankers and disciplined a further 32 after it was discovered that false information had been used in around 2,300 loan applications.
Loan fraud is just one of many examples of misconduct in the industry. As Labor has said time and time again—for month after month, in fact—we need a royal commission to get to the bottom of the rorts and rip-offs and to restore confidence in Australia's financial services industry. I find it incredible that Mr Turnbull and his government would spend 18 months fighting a royal commission only to do one of the biggest backflips we have ever seen and capitulate now. They rejected Labor's call for a royal commission and they rejected the call of families and small businesses who had been hurt by the bank's bad behaviour. They even refused to call a royal commission despite the numerous reports of whistleblowers. But when the banks themselves wrote to Mr Turnbull and accepted the need for a royal commission, it took him one day to finally fold. Mr Turnbull waiting on permission from the banks to call a royal commission is like saying he needs a note from his mum—and I don't mean in the Senator Canavan way.
The banks' letter to the government make for interesting reading. Here are a few extracts from that letter. In three instances, the banks refer to the need to act:
… it is now imperative for the Australian Government to act decisively to deliver certainty to Australia’s financial services sector.
… … …
… it is now in the national interest for the political uncertainty to end …
… … …
We now ask you and your government to act to ensure a properly constituted inquiry into the financial services sector is established to put an end to the uncertainty …
I think all of those comments can be read as, 'We know an inquiry is inevitable, so we give you permission to get on with it, get it over with and get it done with.' In their letter, the banks' CEOs also said:
In our view, a properly constituted inquiry must have several significant characteristics.
In other words, 'Let us explain to you how we want this thing to be run.'
The letter said:
Its terms of reference should be thoughtfully drafted and free of political influence.
In other words, 'Give us a call. We'll tell you what we want the terms of reference to be and then you can draft it.'
Another quote is:
It is also important that any inquiry reports back in a timely manner so that we can have certainty about the findings and move forward to implement any recommendations.
Once again they're saying, 'Let's get this over and done with ASAP.'
Was the banks' call for a royal commission, and this government's acceptance of that call, done in the spirit of public interest? I think not. It's as clear as day to every Australian that the banks and the government saw the writing on the wall. They knew the pressure was on, they knew the pressure was growing and they knew that an inquiry was inevitable. Rather than accepting the need for a royal commission, after months of holding out against public pressure and pressure from the Labor Party, this government has been dragged kicking and screaming to this new position. It was a backflip of epic proportions, one that would impress an Olympic gymnast. Only on Tuesday of last week, Mr Turnbull was still insisting that his government would not call a royal commission. Two days later, he was announcing one. I think Senator O'Sullivan's comment that the Prime Minister had been dragged to the table is quite apt. In fact, my earlier description of him being dragged kicking and screaming is not that original; it's the same description used by Mr Christensen, a member of the coalition's own backbench, to describe what has recently transpired. And just to show what an extraordinary backflip this was, let's examine what the government had to say about a royal commission previously. Mr Turnbull said:
The only beneficiaries from a royal commission would be, frankly, the legal profession.
He also described a royal commission as something that would go on for years, cost hundreds of millions of dollars and not tell us anything new. Mr Turnbull's Treasurer, Mr Morrison, described Labor's calls for a royal commission as 'a cynical political exercise' which sought to cynically exploit people's genuine concerns and politicise their pain. Mr Morrison also described it as a 'crass populist approach' to the issue.
After such a humiliating backflip, this government will no doubt be choking on their words. This is clearly another desperate tactic by this Prime Minister to hold on to his leadership. It's an attempt to hold off a backbench revolt, just like Mr Turnbull's decision to cancel a week of sitting of the House of Representatives was. Whichever way this government tries to spin it, these decisions are about Mr Turnbull's political interests, not Australia's national interest.
If Mr Turnbull were a decisive leader, a leader who was governing in the national interest, he would not be lurching from crisis to crisis. He would not be belatedly bowing to public pressure. Instead, he would have called a royal commission months or even years ago, and the commission could have handed down its report by now. We could be debating and implementing the recommendations right now if he'd called it even 18 months ago. A royal commission into the banks is in the national interest, but the national interest is not what Mr Turnbull and his government are motivated by. While we welcome this announcement, we would prefer it be done for the right reasons. Let's hope it's not a token exercise, which is what it appears to be, given the rushed manner in which it has been announced.
We know from evidence recently given by ASIC's deputy president, Peter Kell, that the government did not consult ASIC on their decision to launch a royal commission or on the terms of reference. We also know, from groups representing the victims of banking scandals, that the victims weren't consulted either. The government certainly didn't consult with the opposition. We'll just have to wait and see how effective this inquiry is, because we know the terms of reference could be much stronger.
It's cold comfort to the victims of many banking scandals over the years that the government have finally called a royal commission not because they thought it was actually necessary but because their mates in the banks told them to do it. One of the clauses in the terms of reference provides that the royal commission is not required to inquire into 'macro-prudential policy, regulation or oversight'. This basically means it will not be looking at whether the regulatory framework for our financial system is effective and up to date. It also appears that the government, in a partisan fashion, is using this royal commission as a cynical opportunity to attack industry superannuation funds.
The lack of consultation over the terms of reference is disappointing. We on this side will be doing our best to improve them. Labor is working with the government to ensure we have a royal commission that has real teeth, one that can provide some comfort and confidence for the millions of Australians who rely on banks to take care of their borrowings and savings. We certainly want a stronger response to misconduct in the financial services industry, something stronger than just the rebranding exercise in this bill.
There are a few positives in this bill, such as the lifting of the threshold for disputes that can be heard, removing the competition between the FOS and the CIO for the membership of financial services firms, and additional oversight powers for ASIC. However, I refer to my earlier arguments and I once again emphasise that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal should be retained in its present form. As such, I urge all senators to support Labor's amendments when they come to the Senate.
From the outset, may I express my reservations about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017. This is another attempt by the government—like governments of all persuasions—to appear to be doing something meaningful to address a substantive problem that they've tried to avoid addressing for a very long time. In this case, it dates back to Mr Hockey. When he was Treasurer in 2013, he had the Financial System Inquiry. It reported in 2014. Then we had the Ramsay review, commissioned in 2016, into the complaints framework in financial services. That report was released on 9 May of this year. Both of those inquiries were designed to avoid a royal commission into the banking and financial sector, and they've gestated and given birth to the bill that we see before us now.
I've never been a supporter of a royal commission into banks. I believe—and I said this to some senior banking executives—there was a degree of inevitability about it because of what the National Party was doing, with the support of the Greens, the Labor Party and others. That doesn't mean that I fully support it, but it will be coming into being now, with the government having initiated it. The terms of reference may not satisfy some in the building, but at least the royal commission will provide a complete ventilation of many of the issues that people have been talking about, including the Financial Complaints Authority. That's why my advice to the government, for what it is worth, is that they shouldn't be proceeding with this bill. This is front running that was designed to avoid a royal commission and an inquiry into the financial services sector, but principally the banks. They now have that and, yet, they're still proceeding with this bill. It's not saving a substantial amount of money, it's not reducing bureaucracy. In actual fact, I think what it's going to do is create an environment where people will be treated differently according to how their advice was received.
Currently, within the financial services framework, there is a huge difference between a bank wealth management arm, for example, with all the billions of dollars' worth of resources available to it—and the inherent conflicts of interest that also go with that, I must say—to an independently owned financial planning arm, a licensee of a broader financial services licence holder, a truly independent fee-only adviser versus your suburban accountant who might be providing some advice on self-managed superannuation funds, or they might have a specialist financial planner in there. They're different entities. The people accessing them have different expectations. As a result, I believe that those individual entities should have the right to choose a complaints mechanism that will work for them, that is going to be responsive and understanding of the different applications that go right through the financial services sector, rather than merging entities into one that is essentially going to be operating for the big corporates. That's the conclusion that I've drawn—it will be operating for the big banks, it will be mired in bureaucracy, it will force a compliance regime almost that will make the independently owned financial planner or the smaller shop almost unviable.
Choice in complaints resolution is critical, in my view. Not only does it foster competition and more responsiveness but it will, I think, keep costs down. And let's make no mistake about this. The cost of compliance when you're providing advice to clients or providing any services associated with money means it's becoming almost prohibitive to provide specialised or personalised financial advice to the smaller mum-and-dad investor, if I can put it like that. For the person that is starting out and accumulating a nest egg, saying, 'Well, I'd like some financial planning advice,' it's not viable. It's not viable for them to access personalised financial planning advice, because the compliance is enormous.
I understand that this compliance has grown over the course of time because of rogue advisers, dishonest acts and the fact that, wherever there is a pool of money, you will find rogues and sharks attracted to it. That is simply the way. But legislating for the aberrations is wrong. I think what is much more important is: where something has been done incorrectly, where criminal activity has taken place, that that be pursued to the full extent of the law, not that you should have to cause people to fill in 150 pages of documents before they can access it. Where rogues exist, kick them out of the industry. Ensure that clients are compensated. But the best way you can do it is to make it crystal clear what people are signing up to—and say, 'This is what we're putting you into. This is the fee that's going to be attached to it. This is the service you can expect'—and not hide it at the back of the fat bit of puffery in the client forms. Put it front and centre, explain it to them, get them to initial every particular point and get them to understand the risks attached to it.
It highlights, I must say, the lack of financial education that is taking place in this country. It is another area where governments of successive persuasions have been abject failures, quite frankly. They say they've got the ASIC MoneySmart website to warn of scams and all of that. That's great; it's fantastic. But when our children come out of the school system and don't understand the difference between compound and simple interest, or even the most basic fundamentals of investing, you think it is a scandal. Education shouldn't just be about history or the application of literature; it should be about equipping them with very sound and sensible life skills.
There are two areas in this where I think you can radically change individuals' lives, and particularly children's. If you equip them with good money habits and an understanding of investment, you will offer them choices and freedom that is otherwise unavailable to them. Similarly, I would say that, if you can teach people to maintain good health habits, you will equip them with a lifetime of, all things being equal, mobility that is going to serve them in good stead as well. I put my money where my mouth is and I wrote a couple of little books for children in this regard on both of those topics because I think they are absolutely critical to the success and the well-rounding of an individual.
They are two abject failures of our education system, and no amount of tinkering around the edges will protect individuals where their own knowledge is deficient. I don't say that to malign the individuals, but, if you do not understand even the most basics of what is being put in front of you, whether it comes to investment, finance, interest rates or fees, then how can you possibly make an informed judgement? It is little wonder, then, that those people, when it doesn't work for them, start to complain about how they've been mistreated and wrongly sold a product or an environment.
That is why the relationship between the adviser and the client is critical—so that they get to know each other, so that they get to know the goals and so that the client can trust them. If we deny individuals that by removing the choice of a complaints mechanism and driving up the cost of financial advice and planning, we limit the ability for individuals to access financial advice. Then, of course, they're driven into the one-size-fits-all fund, which often is the most expensive. These massive retail funds, run by banks or anyone else in their wealth management arms, often have onerous fees and duplicate multiple levels of fees. I'm inherently not attracted to the consolidation of these complaints mechanisms and review mechanisms. I think that it is critical that we provide choice.
I understand that the Labor Party have some amendments to excise the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal from this bill. I also understand that the motives may be less than pure, if I can put it like that.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
I'm sorry to make those suggestions to you, Senator Collins, through you, Acting Deputy Chair, but the fact that the ACTU and the CPSU are opposed to the incorporation of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal suggests that it's more about the unionised workforce than almost anything else. However, notwithstanding my misgivings regarding your motivations, I'm inclined to support the amendments because I do think that even having two choices in the superannuation space, for example, is much better than having only one.
My preference would be to shelve this bill, quite frankly—and, if the government were smart, they would shelve it and wait for the outcome of the royal commission that they've initiated. I say that because, by their own amendment—I was looking at the running sheet—there is a review of operational amendments still to come. So they're acknowledging that they're going to have a look at this in 18 months time to see if it works and they're doing that in light of the results of the royal commission, which is expected to report in 12 months.
Why are we passing legislation that is going to require a massive amount of change and is going to disrupt an industry? There are many in the financial planning area who have expressed concerns to me with this consolidation and amalgamation and how it's going to affect them and their clients. So why would we be making a change that is going to require a cost—which is, I guess, deleterious to many in the industry—and is going to act in favour of the big banks, whilst at the same time we are having a royal commission, ostensibly into the financial services industry, that is going to examine the conduct of the big banks, amongst many others, and then come back after that and review this legislation? It would be much better, much simpler and much more efficient, given that there is actually a cost to implementing this, to wait until after the royal commission and then say, 'Let's have another look at this.' I'd be happy to go along with that. That would actually be the preferred option.
Whilst I will support the second reading of this bill, I do not commit to its passage or supporting its passage in the third reading. I note there are many concerns in the industry. I note there are many concerns amongst the players involved in it, including the credit industry ombudsman, who said that a banking royal commission should come first before the impact of this and that it impacts upon them. I'm concerned about access to independent financial services, in particular, for the smaller consumers. I'm concerned about the professional indemnity requirements that are going to arise from this, and there are many in that industry as well. This is literally a can of worms that I think is unnecessary, particularly given it was designed to stave off a royal commission. The royal commission has now been enacted, and this bill should be put on the too-hard shelf until the outcome of the royal commission is known.
I thank all senators who contributed to this debate. And I would like to thank those crossbenchers who have indicated to the government their support for this Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 and other related legislation to overhaul the financial system dispute resolution framework by establishing a new one-stop-shop dispute resolution body, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, to ensure that consumers and small businesses have access to a free, fast and binding dispute resolution process.
This bill forms part of the government's broader commitment to ensure that where consumers or small business, in particular, have legitimate grievances about the way they were treated by banks or other financial services providers, there is an avenue for efficient but also binding dispute resolution without having to go through the court system.
I would like to just pick up on Senator Bernardi contribution's, where he indicated that we should do nothing in relation to this, in relation to improving the dispute resolution processes for consumers and small business until such time as the royal commission has reported. That goes to the heart of one of our core reservations about a royal commission into the banks and the financial system more generally. We were concerned that this is precisely what would happen, that people would use it as an excuse to do nothing, until such time as the report has been received. The government's view is that we need to continue to act, we need to continue to address issues, we need to continue to take real action. This piece of legislation is a core part of our package of taking action to ensure that consumers and small business, in particular, can have the most appropriate access possible to efficient and binding dispute resolution processes.
Let me make a few other remarks. In addition to the requirements that will be placed on the Australian Financial Complaints Authority via this legislation, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will have regard to the AFCA's proposed terms of reference in making an authorisation decision, as stated in the government's commitment to One Nation. The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will require that AFCA's terms of reference will provide that an adverse inference should generally be drawn from a financial services provider's failure to provide information that is material to the resolution of a dispute, except in exceptional and unusual circumstances. In addition to this, it is her intention that for disputes relating to loans, to primary production businesses, including agriculture, forestry and fishery businesses, she will require the compensation cap of up to $2 million for all disputes about a small-business credit facility of up to $5 million.
I also note the support of both One Nation and Senator Anning for the government's amendments to require a review of AFCA after 18 months. And, again, just responding to some of the issues raised by Senator Bernardi in his contribution, that is just good practice, after a new initiative has been in place for a period, to conduct a review to assess whether it has delivered based on what was intended and, if not, what additional evolutionary improvements can be made to the arrangements that are in place. With those few words, I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Firstly, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I seek leave to move government amendments on sheet HU180 together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) to (16) on sheet HU180:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column 1), omit "33", substitute "32".
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 18), after paragraph 1051(3) (d), insert:
(da) the operator's constitution provides that the Chair of the board of the operator must be an independent person; and
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 19 (after line 28), after section 1054B, insert:
1054BA Power to give directions
(1) AFCA may, in connection with, or as part of the process of, determining a superannuation complaint:
(a) give directions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of documents or information relating to the complaint; and
(b) give directions as to who may be present at any meeting held by AFCA relating to the complaint.
(2) In giving directions, AFCA must have regard to the wishes of the parties in relation to the complaint and the need to protect their privacy.
(3) Directions may be made in writing or orally.
(4) A person must not refuse or fail to comply with a direction under this section.
Penalty: 30 penalty units.
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 22 (line 4), at the end of paragraph 1055(6) (c), add:
or (iv) cancel the complainant's membership of the life policy fund or of any sub-plan of the fund;
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 8), omit "the payment of".
(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 12), omit "the person received, from the decision-maker,", substitute "the decision-maker gave the person".
(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 16), omit "receiving", substitute "being given".
(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 18), omit "receiving", substitute "being given".
(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 20), omit "the person received, from the decision-maker,", substitute "the decision-maker gave the person".
(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 24), omit "receiving", substitute "being given".
(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 26), omit "receiving", substitute "being given".
(12) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 27), omit "received", substitute "been given".
(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 32), omit "the payment of".
(14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 24 (line 34), omit "receive", substitute "be given".
(15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 25 (line 11), omit "the payment of".
(16) Schedule 1, item 2, page 25 (line 18), omit "receives", substitute "is given".
I advise the chamber that this set of amendments makes a series of non-controversial technical amendments to the bill. It also addresses concerns raised by key stakeholders about the bill's initial draft. The government is proposing these amendments particularly in response to the inquiry into the bill by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. They will provide additional certainty and clarity around aspects of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority's operations to ensure that it operates as effectively as possible. As I have indicated, the amendments are of a technical nature and respond to key concerns raised by superannuation and consumer stakeholders.
I indicate that we are not inclined to support these amendments. We believe that the amendments that we have put forward on sheet 8284 would be the appropriate way to deal with this. The amendments on sheet 8284 would maintain the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal in its current form, separate from the proposed AFCA ombudsman body. In October last year, under pressure to call a banking royal commission, the Prime Minister promised to establish a new tribunal to deal with financial service complaints and disputes, but this bill does not create a tribunal. We know that the AFCA is not a tribunal like the Prime Minister promised. It's not even a government authority at all. The word 'authority' in AFCA's name is a misnomer. AFCA is just another ombudsman scheme, in the form of a private company, limited by guarantee. It's another FOS and another CIO. Instead of creating a tribunal, this legislation actually abolishes a tribunal already in place.
Our amendments would protect the tribunal—that is, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—that has been there for decades. It's a tribunal that operates effectively when it's properly funded. The government, in our view, hasn't made a case to replace a specialist statutory body with the new AFCA. There are three existing financial sector external dispute resolution bodies. The government is replacing the first two bodies—the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Credit and Investments Ombudsman—with another private company, a limited-by-guarantee ombudsman service. AFCA is a merger and a rebranding. ASIC has confirmed that, aside from potential increases in the value of disputes that can be heard, the new AFCA will not have any new powers to resolve consumer disputes that the first two bodies do not already have. In abolishing the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, the bill is much more than a rebranding exercise. Labor believes this will weaken protections and outcomes for consumers.
The design of the SCT recognises that superannuation is not just a regular financial service based on a contractual relationship. The design of the SCT recognises that superannuation trustees are custodians of the retirement savings of millions of Australians. They have obligations to all members, unlike the other two bodies. This bill seeks to replace AFCA. The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal was established as a government statutory tribunal with special powers and expertise to deal with superannuation disputes. The reasons that we seek our amendments are as follows—and I know that's not what's before the chair at the moment, but I just want to explain where we are.
Firstly, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal should remain an independent statutory body. It was established in 1993 and has been effective in resolving disputes within super. Super is not just about another financial product and should not be seen as such. The only real criticism that has been made of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is its delays in resolving some disputes. But it is clear that this is the result of a lack of funding and staff cuts, including a 30 per cent reduction in staff under this government. There is nothing significantly wrong with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal that a suitable funding model wouldn't fix. The SCT has the technical expertise needed for complicated super disputes, as do the adjudicators. This is at risk of being diminished over time with a broad complaints body. The SCT has just under 2,500 complaints in 2016, compared to FOS which has 34,095 complaints. There is a real risk of the superannuation industry cross-subsidising dispute resolution for other parts of the financial services sector, which will affect the hard-earned savings of Australians. The need for a special, standalone superannuation complaints tribunal will become even more important as funds within the superannuation sector continue to grow over time. Submissions to the Senate inquiry and hearings made clear that, despite government's attempts to copy and paste Superannuation Complaints Tribunal powers into the new AFCA body, there are a number of important protections and powers that are missing. Despite potential last-minute government amendments, some of these issues remain outstanding—and we've just received further amendments this morning.
A number of groups, including the Law Council of Australia's Superannuation Committee, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, Industry Super Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand either oppose the abolition of the SCT or have raised concerns about protections that are not included in the new bill or process. Even the SCT chairperson, Helen Davis, told the committee:
I don't think it would be true to say, in relation to super, that it's a rebranding exercise. Arguably, it's quite a significant change for superannuation, specifically in terms of the external dispute resolution. It goes from a statutory body to a non-statutory body. It moved from a specialist body to a one-stop-shop body.
I ask the minister: does the minister agree that this is not a statutory authority?
It's a matter of public record: the new Australian Financial Complaints Authority is not a statutory authority.
So could the minister outline why the government wants to move from a statutory authority to a private sector body limited by guarantee? What are the reasons for this?
The government has actually made that point very clear throughout the debate. The government is acting on the independent advice of the expert Ramsay review panel. The Ramsay review recommended an industry dispute resolution scheme as a more flexible and effective model than a tribunal. The overwhelming majority of submissions to the Ramsay review expressed concerns that a statutory tribunal would be legalistic, inflexible and costly, delivering worse outcomes for consumers. Key consumer groups, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and Financial Counselling Australia, have indicated that their primary position remains that the best framework for dispute resolution in the financial system is a single industry ombudsman scheme for all disputes, including superannuation disputes. The government's approach will establish a one-stop shop that meets all of the criteria that proponents of a banking tribunal are calling for. AFCA will result in disputes being resolved fairly and efficiently in a less legalistic forum than a court, with access to compensation where consumers have wrongfully suffered a loss and decisions that are binding on financial firms.
All financial firms will be required to be members of AFCA by law, and decisions made by AFCA will be binding on them. If a financial firm fails to comply with an AFCA determination, AFCA can expel the firm, which would mean the firm would be in breach of its licence conditions. AFCA will be more flexible. Its terms of reference, rather than legislation, will set out, for example, the kinds of disputes it can hear, the remedies it can provide and the techniques it can use to resolve disputes. The flexibility will allow it to address new emerging issues—for example, cases involving the use of non-monetary covenants have been prominent in the debate over industry conduct. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman's report on small business loans recommended that banks be restricted from defaulting a loan under $5 million for any reason where a small business has complied with the loan payment requirement and acted lawfully.
If the amendments on sheet HU180 are agreed to, what are the implications for funding?
As I indicated when I moved the amendments, the amendments are essentially of a technical nature and respond to key concerns raised by superannuation consumer stakeholders. Given the question asked, let me go through the amendments in detail. Three amendments change or add wording to the AFCA bill to make it consistent with the language from the existing Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993. One amendment provides AFCA with the power to issues directions aimed at protecting the confidentiality of information in certain circumstances. The amendment also allows AFCA to give directions as to the persons who may be present at certain meetings. This power is supported by a penalty provision. A similar provision is currently in the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993. One amendment to the AFCA bill includes an ongoing requirement that the AFCA board have an independent chair. Another amendment corrects a typographical error in the bill. In direct answer to the question: these amendments do not go to the funding of the new body; they go directly to the technical issues that I've outlined.
Thanks for that answer, Minister. The amendments on sheet HU180 would reinforce the proposition in terms of some of the technical issues: the power to give directions, the directions relating to meetings, the cancelling of membership of the life policy fund and the interest in a death benefit. In the context of the overall bill, you indicate that these are simply technical issues. On that basis, we certainly would prefer our amendments. We will be pursuing our amendments on sheet 8284. These are technical issues. They may have to be superseded if we get the numbers on the other side, but, on that basis, we would probably be happy to let this go to a vote.
I will just clarify. I fully appreciate the point that Senator Cameron has made. Obviously, the opposition would prefer an alternative approach, which is reflected in your amendments. What I would say, very respectfully, is that, if the bill stands as it was put forward, I believe that the opposition would actually prefer these amendments to pass in case the Labor amendment is unsuccessful. That would be my instinctive view, without wanting to put words into the opposition's mind.
The Greens made it clear in our speech in the second reading debate last night that we're not at the point where we can support the SCT going into this new structure, so I need to be very clear that we'll be supporting Labor's amendments to keep the SCT out of a new AFCA. Our view is that AFCA should proceed as the FOS and CIO at this stage. As I made clear last night, I believe that negotiations, consultations and discussions should be occurring between stakeholders in the superannuation industry, the government and the new AFCA board. I just want to make that very clear. The issue to me is a simple one. It's an issue of trust and a lack of confidence in this government and, of course, a question of the government's motivation for bringing superannuation into this new body. I don't find it surprising that superannuation stakeholders, including the employees at the SCT, their union and others, are highly suspicious of this government's intentions.
This issue around superannuation has been a political battleground. I don't necessarily blame the minister so much for some of the rhetoric that has been out there in the public sphere, but all of us have heard in recent weeks how this government is deadset bent on changing the model of not-for-profit super through industry super funds in this country. To me, this is a matter of getting this organisation set up, getting this architecture in place today and then having discussions. We're in this impasse where SCT have admitted that the union who wrote to me, the CPSU, have admitted their performance hasn't been good enough, but they're hampered by funding and a business model, which looks at the volume of complaints, that needs to change. They're not happy with the upper oversight and the way that works at the moment with super contributions, so that needs to change. At the same time, we've got a government that wants to push ahead with bringing the SCT under this AFCA architecture, and the SCT and other industry stakeholders in superannuation, including ASFA—that's the retail and for-profit funds side of superannuation and the not-for-profit side—don't agree. They believe this has been rushed and needs more work.
Keeping that in mind and then coming to this amendment, the Greens will be supporting Labor's amendment to keep the SCT out of this new structure. But what we essentially have before us in this amendment on sheet HU180 are the amendments that SCT wanted put into this bill if they were to lose this fight. Let's be clear about this: the SCT have recommended these amendments to the bill if superannuation were to be included in AFCA and if we were to lose this fight on the Senate floor here today. So we will be supporting these amendments because, if we lose this fight, at least this tries to improve the situation for the SCT if they're going to be incorporated under this umbrella.
Item (2) on sheet HU180 says:
Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 18), after paragraph 1051(3)(d), insert:
(da) the operator’s constitution provides that the Chair of the board of the operator must be an independent person; and
As I also said in my speech last night, we've had some constructive discussions with the minister's office over weeks about this legislation. Ultimately, we couldn't land on supporting the inclusion of the SCT, but we did urge the minister to consider an independent chair of this organisation. This was a recommendation of the Ramsay review, but we took on board the concerns that Senator Bernardi and One Nation and others have outlined here today.
The CIO has been out there writing us letters saying they're very worried that the big banks and big financial services companies are going to have the run of the new one-stop shop. They're going to be calling the shots, so to speak. So putting an independent chair in place is a really important point. It will mean the chair of this body won't be associated with the big end of town, with the big financial services companies—and I hope that's the case that there will be no conflicts of interest—and they'll be able to stand up for some of the smaller businesses and financial services companies that are currently covered by the CIO.
This is actually an important amendment. Should this bill get up, the Greens would rather see an independent chair in place than have one that was perhaps appointed by the minister or someone who may have conflicts of interest in relation to the existing financial services industry. I just want to get that on record. We don't support the inclusion of the SCT, but, if it is going to be included—and the government has the numbers—at least this improves their lot. The Greens will be supporting this amendment.
I understand the Greens' position, but we are still of the view that the preferred position is Labor's. It would have been good if we could have tested the Labor amendments prior to the minister moving these amendments. That's normally how this process eventuates, but the minister got the jump—the minister was up on his feet the whole time—so that's just something we have to deal with. We will oppose these amendments. We do recognise, if our amendments don't get up, that these amendments are appropriate; I won't put it any higher than 'appropriate'. But our position is we will oppose them because we prefer our position, and we will be moving our amendments at the appropriate time.
Question agreed to.
I move government amendment (1) on sheet HU185:
(1) Page 3 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to be undertaken as soon as practicable after 18 months after the day on and after which, under item 58 of Schedule 1 to this Act, the amendments made by Part 4 of Schedule 1 to this Act apply.
(2) The review must take into account feedback, provided by complainants under the AFCA scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 as amended by this Act), relating to whether their complaints were resolved in a way that was fair, efficient, timely and independent.
Note: Paragraph 1051(4) (b) of the Corporations Act 2001 as amended by this Act provides that one of the operational requirements for the AFCA scheme is that complaints against members of the scheme are resolved in a way that is fair, efficient, timely and independent.
(3) The review must also specifically examine the appropriateness of limits on:
(a) the value of claims that may be made under the AFCA scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 as amended by this Act); and
(b) the value of remedies that may be determined under that scheme;
in relation to disputes about credit facilities provided to primary production businesses, including agriculture, fisheries and forestry businesses.
(4) The Minister must cause a written report about the review to be prepared.
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.
(6) The report is not a legislative instrument.
This amendment will require the government to commission an independent review of the new external dispute resolution framework as soon as practicable 18 months after AFCA commences operations. The review will take into account feedback provided by complainants to AFCA in relation to whether their complaint was resolved in way that was fair, efficient, timely and independent. In particular, it will examine the appropriateness of the monetary limits applying to complaints relating to credit facilities provided to primary production businesses, including agriculture, fisheries and forestry businesses. A report will be provided to the responsible minister and, within 15 days, will be tabled in parliament.
I think Senator Cameron's point that we would have rather tested their amendment first was a very valid one, because I think that's the game changer for us—taking the SCT out of this architecture and this legislation. But can I say that the review was, once again, something the Greens had constructive discussions with the government about in recent weeks and months. We heard stakeholders, including in the superannuation industry, say that, if this were to get up, there should at least be a review of the new AFCA body. We wanted more than just a review. We wanted it to be tabled in parliament. We wanted it to be an instrument that we can debate and scrutinise closely. It is a big move to bring the ombudsman schemes together in a statutory body.
As I mentioned in my speech last night, we accept that there are different cultures and different aspects to superannuation and to financial services, especially the evolution of those organisations. One tends to have a judicial process; they're government employees; they're under a totally different, shall we say, ownership structure to FOS. As I mentioned earlier, these cultural issues haven't been sorted out yet. The super industry, including ASFA, still aren't convinced that there has been enough consultation on this, that it has been rushed and that these issues haven't been properly dealt with.
I reiterate to the government that they should have a process in place where they sit down with the SCT and other industry stakeholders and work to bring them on board to a new AFCA structure, which hopefully will pass today, for FOS and the CIO. The SCT themselves have admitted that their business model needs to change. They need to change their business model. They need more funding. They need more support. Surely there can be some common ground between a government that's been hell-bent on attacking the industry super industry and the stakeholders. The reason we're here today and are having this debate is that the government haven't been able to bring the super industry on board with this. I think it was the Greens who first put up our amendment and said to the government that we wouldn't support anything unless it had a review. Here we have in front of us a government review. I know One Nation have put up an amendment for a review as well, with some specific aspects that we would support. I understand the Nick Xenophon Team have put up a review. A review makes sense and, on that basis, the Greens will support this amendment.
Once again, this is not my first speech. I withdraw the amendment standing in my name on sheet 8341.
Do you wish to speak to the amendment before the chamber?
Yes. As previously indicated, the purpose of this amendment is to require an assessment of the effectiveness of the AFCA scheme for rural debtors to be provided to both houses of the parliament two years after commencement. The amendment will require the minister to conduct an independent review after 18 months of operation, including whether the limit on the value of claims that may be made under the scheme is appropriate, whether the remedies available to be provided by the AFCA are sufficient and whether complainants indicated that the outcomes are fair and timely. The report of this review is required to be tabled, in both houses, six months after its commencement. While the intentions behind this bill are good, if this measure is to be effective we obviously need some kind of measure of success. This modest amendment seeks to do just that. I strongly urge other senators to support this important and very necessary amendment and help all struggling borrowers, from both the country and the big smoke, to get a fair go.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet HU185 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (6), (8), (10), (12), (14), (16), (18), (22) to (25), (27), (29), (31), (33) and (35) on sheet 8284:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), omit the table item.
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 33 and 34), omit the definition of superannuation complaint in section 761A, substitute:
superannuation complaint has the same meaning as complaint in the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993.
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 10), omit "scheme; and", substitute "scheme.".
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (lines 11 to 18), omit paragraph 1051(4) (f) (including the note).
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 13 (lines 8 to 10), omit paragraph 1052E(1) (b).
(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 13 (lines 18 to 29), omit subsection 1052E(2).
(8) Schedule 1, page 29 (line 9), omit the heading.
(10) Schedule 1, page 31 (line 11), omit the heading.
(12) Schedule 1, page 32 (line 6), omit the heading.
(14) Schedule 1, page 32 (line 19), omit the heading.
(16) Schedule 1, page 33 (lines 9 to 10), omit the heading.
(18) Schedule 1, page 33 (line 28), omit the heading.
(20) Schedule 1, page 34 (line 25), omit the heading.
(22) Schedule 1, item 31, page 36 (lines 18 and 19), omit "13, 14 and 29", substitute "13 and 14".
(23) Schedule 1, item 32, page 37 (line 6), at the end of paragraph 912A(2) (c), add "(unless all of the complaints against the licensee, made by retail clients in connection with the provision of the financial services covered by the licence, may be dealt with by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal established by section 6 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1983".
(24) Schedule 1, item 33, page 37 (line 9), at the end of paragraph 1017G(2) (c), add "(unless all of the complaints against the person required to have the system, made by retail clients in relation to financial services provided in relation to any of those products, may be dealt with by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal established by section 6 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1983".
(25) Schedule 1, page 38 (line 15), omit the heading.
(27) Schedule 1, page 38 (line 22), omit the heading.
(29) Schedule 1, page 40 (line 3), omit the heading.
(31) Schedule 1, page 40 (line 9), omit the heading.
(33) Schedule 1, page 41 (lines 9 to 10), omit the heading.
(35) Schedule 1, page 41 (line 21), omit the heading.
(37) Schedule 1, page 42 (line 1), omit the heading.
We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:
(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 14 (line 9) to page 29 (line 2), Division 3 to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 1, items 5 to 10, page 29 (line 10) to page 30 (line 4), to be opposed.
(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 31 (lines 12 to 21), to be opposed.
(13) Schedule 1, item 15, page 32 (lines 7 to 18), to be opposed.
(15) Schedule 1, items 16 to 18, page 32 (line 20) to page 33 (line 8), to be opposed.
(17) Schedule 1, item 19, page 33 (lines 11 to 27), to be opposed.
(19) Schedule 1, items 20 to 25, page 33 (line 29) to page 34 (line 24), to be opposed.
(21) Schedule 1, items 26 to 30, page 34 (line 26) to page 36 (line 12), to be opposed.
(26) Schedule 1, item 42, page 38 (lines 16 to 21), to be opposed.
(28) Schedule 1, item 43, page 38 (lines 23 to 27), to be opposed.
(30) Schedule 1, item 45, page 40 (lines 4 to 8), to be opposed.
(32) Schedule 1, item 46, page 40 (lines 10 to 16), to be opposed.
(34) Schedule 1, item 52, page 41 (lines 11 to 20), to be opposed.
(36) Schedule 1, item 53, page 41 (lines 22 to 30), to be opposed.
(38) Schedule 1, items 54 to 57, page 42 (lines 2 to 26), to be opposed.
(39) Schedule 3, page 52 (line 1) to page 57 (line 9), to be opposed.
Our position is clear: we think that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal should be maintained in its current position. The complaints tribunal, as I've indicated, has operated for some time. The very fact that the government has tried to replicate the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal in the AFCA bill demonstrates that the current powers, protections and structures for the SCT are appropriate. In May this year, the draft legislation tried to copy and paste a few of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions into the new AFCA. In September this year, the final legislation introduced, copied and pasted, more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions in the new AFCA. Now, after the Senate inquiry and after Labor senators exposed serious flaws, the government has circulated amendments to copy even more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal provisions into the new AFCA. The ad hoc process of grafting features of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal onto the AFCA has been a tacit admission by the government that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is a far superior model for resolving superannuation disputes than the private AFCA body.
The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is designed as a statutory body, a statutory tribunal, imbued with statutory powers to resolve disputes. The significant public role that the SCT has in upholding the integrity of Australia's superannuation system is reflected in its structure—with a chairperson appointed by a government for a fixed term and part-time tribunal members with expertise in superannuation, insurance, government, legal and medical fields—in recognition of the complexity of the superannuation disputes that come before it. It also includes superannuation life insurance disputes. Submissions to the Senate inquiry also made clear that issues that arise with the other two existing bodies, the FOS and the CIO, do not arise with respect to the SCT. Unlike the other two existing bodies, there is far less overlap between the jurisdiction of the SCT and the other two schemes than there is between the other two existing bodies, the FOS and the CIO.
In relation to the prospects of increasing on the monetary limits to the disputes that can be heard, it should be noted that any changes would only benefit complainants with disputes currently heard before the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Credit and Investments Ombudsman. In relation to superannuation disputes, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal already has an unlimited and uncapped jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to superannuation.
There have also been serious concerns raised about the transition arrangements to the AFCA as currently outlined in the bill. Mike Taylor, in Super Review, summarises these nicely:
… there is much to suggest that the creation of AFCA represents a bureaucratic slow-motion train crash with the Treasury officials confirming that the financial services industry will have to deal with four different external dispute resolution schemes for at least a year after the necessary legislation is passed and that the SCT will still be clearing its workload as late as 2022.
He goes on to say:
The transitionary arrangements as outlined by the Treasury officials involve more loose ends than a beggar’s blanket with no definitive numbers being available for how the SCT will be funded to complete its work, how a statutory Government authority will be appropriately transitioned into a not for profit company arrangement or precisely how much superannuation funds or other stakeholders will have to pay.
The Turnbull government has no plans to ensure that AFCA will have the professional expertise to resolve superannuation disputes. The expertise currently resides in the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and it will have to stay there, because, under the government's plan, the SCT will stay in operation for a number of years to work through existing superannuation disputes.
The Turnbull government has announced no plans to adequately fund the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to deal with those existing disputes. The government's plan is to keep the SCT in place to resolve disputes received before the commencement of AFCA on 1 July 2018. The government has said it wants the SCT to resolve all existing complaints by 30 June 2020; yet it cut the SCT's funding by $7.2 million in this year's budget. The SCT told the Senate inquiry that, on current funding, it won't be able to finalise old disputes until 2022. When asked by the Senate committee, Treasury could not provide any guarantee that the funding issues would be resolved. All it could offer on behalf of this government were weak assurances that discussions between Treasury and the SCT were ongoing. So, Minister, can you give us an update on those discussions and whether the funding issues have been resolved?
Firstly, let me say, as the government has previously indicated, that we believe funding arrangements are appropriate but, of course, always under review. Let me also indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments. These amendments seek to retain the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal so that AFCA will not be able to hear and determine superannuation complaints. Instead of a one-stop shop, we would be left with a two-stop shop. Under a one-stop shop, consumers will be able to approach one body to resolve all financial disputes, eliminating uncertainty, confusion, inconsistency of outcomes and the cross-referral of disputes between bodies. Where a complaint covers multiple providers within the financial system, managing these complaints will be smoother. The one-stop shop will remove the current duplication associated with multiple external dispute resolution bodies, such as duplicated governance arrangements, systems, overheads and costs associated with regulatory oversight. A one-stop shop will also be better able to respond to unanticipated changes in dispute volumes and to reallocate resources from those areas experiencing a reduction in dispute volumes to those areas experiencing higher dispute volumes. For example, in the event of a natural disaster like a flood or a cyclone, AFCA will be able to increase resources in areas where disputes may increase, such as in the area of general insurance claims. A one-stop shop will have much more flexibility and direct control over its funding and dispute resolution processes. This will allow a more timely resolution of superannuation complaints.
Again, the Ramsay review found that maintaining a tribunal structure to resolve superannuation complaints would not provide the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the superannuation sector and that existing pressures would only increase in the absence of significant reform. This is why I indicated before that the government is acting on the independent advice of the expert Ramsay review panel, which recommended an industry dispute resolution scheme as a more flexible and effective model than a tribunal. I would also like to remind the chamber again that the overwhelming majority of submissions to the Ramsay review expressed concerns that a statutory tribunal would be legalistic, inflexible and costly, delivering worse outcomes for consumers, and that key consumer groups, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and Financial Counselling Australia, have indicated their primary position remains that the best framework for dispute resolution in the financial system is a single industry ombudsman scheme for all disputes, including superannuation disputes.
I would also take this opportunity to comment on a related matter that was mentioned by Senator Whish-Wilson, referencing the view of CPSU members at the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. I would note that only 12 employees of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal are members of the CPSU. The CPSU does not speak for or represent all employees of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, or rather ASIC, as they are actually ASIC employees. So, with those few comments, I indicate the government's opposition to these amendments.
Minister, I'm still not clear as to what the funding arrangements will be. You took us through some of the political reasoning for the position that you've adopted, but there's another issue that has also come up. If the bill is passed this year, the four years will expire in late 2021. That's what the bill says, and yet it's clear, taking into account the cuts to the SCT in the 2017 budget, that it won't be able to resolve all disputes until December 2022, a whole year after it's had the statutory rug pulled out from under it and from under Australians whose disputes are yet to be resolved at that date.
We think it's contemptuous of the government to ask this chamber to authorise the abolition of the tribunal by a certain date when the government can't even guarantee the funding to ensure that all residual disputes of the tribunal are resolved by that date. What guarantees can you give us that that funding will be there between late 2021 and December 2022?
Firstly, I reject the proposition that the government cannot guarantee adequate funding. The government is guaranteeing adequate funding for the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. Furthermore, the government will ensure that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal has adequate funding while it operates and to wind down in an appropriate manner, and so it is able to clear the backlog of complaints. So I reject the premise of the question that was originally asked. I thought that I had already answered it. The government is satisfied that adequate funding has been provided. We'll continue to monitor, of course, the situation. And, of course, the government will at all times ensure that adequate funding is available.
I must say that I'm not convinced by the answer. I just want to move to another issue—the death benefit disputes. It's worth looking at an example of the achievements of the SCT. One of the most difficult aspects of superannuation disputes are superannuation death benefit disputes. These kinds of disputes are just one example of the value of a specialised, professional and statutory body for resolving superannuation disputes. It's important to note that there are significant differences between retail life insurance disputes and superannuation death benefit disputes. Under superannuation law, it's often up to the superannuation trustee to determine how payments of the death benefit are divided between the deceased person's family members in accordance with the rules of the superannuation fund. This can be a very difficult process, and the trustee may have to consider the rights of a number of family members of the deceased person and the level of reliance the family members had on them. The superannuation trustee often has to look into the dependence of family members on the person who has died and whether they had a reasonable expectation of continuing financial support, such as the surviving partner and financially dependent children.
One of the strengths of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal has been its ability to resolve these disputes through what is known as its conciliation process. Through this conciliation process, the SCT allows all those with a claim to the death benefit to be heard, but the information is kept confidential and the SCT has the power to do this. As the SCT reported to the Senate committee, this information:
…can be highly personal, sensitive, inflammatory and identifiable (for example, the assertions that are made in the context of family members disagreeing about who is entitled to a death benefit under a superannuation life insurance policy).
It's encouraging that the SCT is able to resolve the vast majority of these very difficult disputes between family members by conciliation. Only a small proportion have to go on for final determination by the SCT. This reflects the value of a specialised, professional tribunal with expertise in superannuation law, and strong and established processes for resolving these claims.
Just as important with disputes like these is certainty. The dispute resolution process needs to give an opportunity to all those who feel that they may have an entitlement to part of the death benefit to be heard. But once everyone is heard, there needs to be a final resolution so that there can be certainty and families can move on. This means that anybody or institution tasked with resolving these disputes must have the power to join additional parties. It must also have the power to make a decision that is binding on all those parties.
One of the criticisms of the way non-superannuation disputes are handled under AFCA is that for non-super disputes, such as banking disputes, there is no power to join parties. Any dispute scheme that is involved in resolving superannuation death benefit disputes needs power to join a number of parties and the power to deliver a resolution that is binding on these multiple parties. These are necessary powers but they are also significant powers, and it is appropriate that such significant powers lie with a statutory tribunal body like the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.
Labor is concerned that the loss of the expertise and statutory powers that currently exist would be detrimental and result in Australians, who have worked hard for their retirement savings, being denied access to a specialist tribunal which deals solely with superannuation matters. The Prime Minister promised a new tribunal in October 2016. This bill has no new tribunal; instead, it abolishes an existing tribunal. This amendment will protect that tribunal. What we get in AFCA is no significant change from the existing arrangements for disputes from banks. But for superannuation disputes, we get the abolition of a tribunal—a strong statutory tribunal that, resource constraints aside, has served Australians well in handling complicated and heated superannuation disputes, and it does that in an accessible, fair and conclusive manner.
Labor will not accept this government abolishing a crucial piece of the architecture of Australia's superannuation system. We urge this parliament to stand up and prevent a reduction in consumer protections and outcomes that will come from the abolition of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and its replacement with a private body, a generic, one-stop ombudsman scheme. There is very little change in this bill for customers who have a dispute with the banks. They can go to an ombudsman scheme now. AFCA will be an ombudsman scheme as well, and AFCA has no new powers for these disputes. The Prime Minister promised a tribunal. The bill fails to deliver one. Instead, what this bill presents is a rebadging of the existing Financial Ombudsman Service and the Credit and Investments Ombudsman and the abolition of a tribunal, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.
In relation to superannuation disputes, this bill represents a substantial reduction in the quality of dispute resolution in its attempt to replace a statutory Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, with specialist expertise for complex super disputes, with a generic private body one-stop shop ombudsman whose powers are based on contract law. As such, we commend this amendment, as it protects the quality and integrity of superannuation dispute resolution by retaining the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. I would urge all of the crossbench to support what has been a very effective, efficient and longstanding tribunal with runs on the board in dealing with the specialist issues that arise from superannuation.
The problem that we have is that this government does everything in its power to resist superannuation being delivered to working-class people in this country. It resisted superannuation being introduced in the first place. It continues to resist increases to superannuation for workers who need superannuation so that they can retire with dignity. This is part of its attack on superannuation. It removes a tribunal that has worked effectively and efficiently over many years. It takes it away from a statutory organisation to a privately run organisation.
We don't believe it's the appropriate way to go. We would hope that the crossbench supports our position. The crossbench should not be aligning itself with the government to further attack the efficacy of the superannuation system in this country. I would ask One Nation to give serious consideration to supporting this body, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, that has been effective, that has been efficient and that looks after families—it's not just workers; it's families—who end up in disputes or disagreements over superannuation payments. I ask that One Nation continues to support the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal as the most effective and longstanding proposition to deal with these superannuation disputes.
I take the view that these are important issues that we should deal with. Just before we go on, I'd like the minister to answer these questions: can the minister confirm that the SCT will be wound up four years after the bill receives royal assent; can the minister confirm that the SCT has provided advice to the government that, on current funding levels, the SCT will not be able to finalise all disputes until December 2022, over five years away; and can the minister guarantee that the SCT will receive additional funding from the government to resolve the disputes?
In relation to the last question, I've already indicated that the government will ensure that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, as it's wound up, has the appropriate resources to clear the backlog of complaints. I can also confirm that the legislation provides that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal would be wound up by 2022.
I will also just address some of the other issues that Senator Cameron has raised. Again, pointing to the Ramsay review, the Ramsay review found that a statutory tribunal to resolve superannuation complaints does not provide flexibility to adapt to changes in the superannuation sector. It also found that the longstanding issues with superannuation dispute resolution arrangements could not be fully resolved in a statutory tribunal structure, even with reforms to funding and governance, as the tribunal structure would not provide flexibility. AFCA will have maximum flexibility to deal with complaints in a timelier manner by having direct control over its funding and its processes. It will have increased transparency and flexibility over funding arrangements.
AFCA will also retain key statutory powers to ensure that superannuation dispute resolution is aligned with trustee duties and, most importantly, consumers can approach one body to resolve all financial disputes, eliminating uncertainty and confusion. Specifically in relation to the issue of death benefit complaints—which is where Senator Cameron started in his most recent contribution—the current processes for determining death benefits, including identifying who has an interest in a death benefit within appropriate time limits to bring forward a complaint about the distribution of a death benefit, have been replicated in this new legislation.
I can indicate that the Nick Xenophon Team will not be supporting these amendments. While we acknowledge some of the concerns that have been raised about the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal being incorporated into AFCA, we believe that the proposed model will deliver faster, more effective dispute resolution for all consumers than a model that preserves the SCT as a standalone tribunal. There are inherent limitations with the tribunal model, where processes are determined by legislation, the appointment of the tribunal members can be delayed and any changes to funding is dependent on the government budget cycle. It is also inflexible and not able to respond to changes in demand in the way the ombudsman scheme can. These limitations do not contribute to positive consumer outcomes.
I would like to take the opportunity to ask the minister a couple of questions in relation to the AFCA terms of reference, specifically in relation to principles of fairness in the external dispute resolution framework. I refer to a case in the Victorian Supreme Court, Cromwell Property Securities Limited v Financial Ombudsman Services and Radford (2013), where the court found that a party to a contract, and that contract is the terms of reference, must establish Wednesbury unreasonableness—namely, that the decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could properly arrive at at the evidence. Basically, it is saying that you can't appeal a tribunal decision unless the decision is so unreasonable that no-one could reasonably make it.
I'm strongly of the view that fairness principles used by a multiple of statutory tribunals need to be adopted such that fairness is not left to the opinion of AFCA. Some of these fairness principles might include the fact that there is mandatory discovery for parties, open exchange of information between the parties, the prohibition of private advocacy to the ombudsman, the prohibition of apprehended or actual bias, the right to be heard, that irrelevant material must not be considered, that relevant considerations must be considered, and that the tribunal cannot act in the manner that constitutes Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Can the minister please advise what steps the government has taken to ensure the terms of reference contain these principles of fairness so the decisions made by AFCA will not simply be based on a process that is fair in the opinion of AFCA alone?
I thank Senator Patrick for his contribution. AFCA will be required by law to be appropriately accessible to persons that have complaints against financial firms that are members of AFCA. All Australian financial services licensees will be required by condition of their licence to be a member of AFCA. AFCA will also be required under the legislation to resolve complaints in a way that is fair, efficient, timely and independent. ASIC will be given a broad new directions power to compel AFCA to comply with the mandatory requirements under this legislation. ASIC will also have a new legislative instrument-making power to ensure AFCA satisfies its legislative requirements, including the requirement to resolve complaints in a way that is fair, efficient, timely and independent.
AFCA's discretion to decline to hear a particular complaint will be appropriately limited by tightening the parameters for exercise of its discretion—that is, by requiring AFCA to set out the factors it will have regard to before exercising the discretion, including a requirement to provide written reasons where AFCA exercises the discretion, and including an internal review mechanism for those circumstances where AFCA exercises its discretion. In addition, the responsible minister, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister O'Dwyer, will have regard to AFCA's proposed terms of reference when making the authorisation decision, and will be able to impose conditions on authorisation. The responsible minister, Minister O'Dwyer, will require AFCA's terms of reference to include a commitment to procedural fairness before she will authorise the scheme. Following authorisation, any material change to AFCA's terms of reference will require ASIC approval. These measures strike the right balance, we believe, between providing AFCA with the flexibility to refuse to hear a complaint when this is appropriate and ensuring that AFCA is accountable for the exercise of this discretion.
AFCA's decision-making approach in relation to non-superannuation complaints and as affirmed by the Ramsay review will adopt the approach currently taken by the Financial Ombudsman Service and the CIO. AFCA will make decisions based on what is fair in all circumstances. As a non-legal body, it is reasonable that AFCA should make decisions that are fair in all circumstances as opposed to decisions that, while adhering to the law, nonetheless result in unfair or very unreasonable outcomes for consumers.
There is also a legislative obligation on AFCA to ensure that it has the appropriate expertise to deal with complaints within its jurisdiction, and AFCA will be required to have an independent assessor and to have regard to the use of panels for complex complaints, and will also be subject to more frequent independent reviews, which can look at different aspects of AFCA's operations, including its decision-making processes. The government has also established a transition team led by Dr Malcolm Edey, former assistant governor with the RBA, for the establishment of AFCA. The consultation paper on AFCA's governance and funding arrangements has been released for stakeholder feedback.
I have some questions, but firstly I want to reiterate the point that I've made the last couple of times I've spoken: we'll be supporting this amendment by Labor. We don't believe that now is the right time to be merging the SCT into this new entity. There needs to be considerable discussion between stakeholders and the government, and with AFCA, before that occurs.
In relation to the SCT being merged into this organisation, I have some questions that I don't believe have been addressed—if it is going to go ahead; hopefully it won't, but if it is. Minister, you mentioned terms of reference in your response to the Nick Xenophon Team. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia have given us the key reforms and their positions on these reforms. One of the points they make that they're disappointed by is that, while time limits for complaints will be addressed by the terms of reference, they actually haven't seen the detail of those terms of reference because they're yet to be finalised—I'm not even sure that they are majorly completed yet. I will put on record that it's been a topic of conversation between the Greens and the minister: we've requested to see those terms of reference and the detail around those terms of reference, but they haven't been done yet. Minister, do you have the terms of reference and that kind of detail with you now? And, if you do, will you be able to table them for the Senate?
My answer to Senator Patrick actually went directly to this point. There is a transition team currently underway, led by Dr Malcolm Edey, which is overseeing—among other things—the consultation in relation to the AFCA terms of reference, governance and funding arrangements, a consultation paper, which has been released for stakeholder feedback. It obviously wouldn't be appropriate for the government to finalise terms of reference in relation to a body that hasn't yet been set up by legislation. We're not presuming the outcome for the parliament; the first step is to get the approval of the parliament for the establishment of this one-stop-shop complaints mechanism, which we are strongly recommending to the parliament. We have set out the process that we would follow from here to finalise the terms of reference and we've indicated some of the guiding principles that the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will work from in order to finalise those terms of reference.
Does the minister accept, though—because there's very little detail in this bill, and most of the detail is going to be in those terms of reference—that there is considerable uncertainty over the final detail of how this is all going to work? Does the minister accept that that's contributed significantly to the lack of confidence and trust, especially amongst the stakeholders in the superannuation industry, around this legislation?
No, I don't, and I don't accept the premise of the question. As I've indicated in answer to a series of previous questions, there has been wide-ranging support—in particular, in the context of the independent Ramsay review—for the approach that the government is taking and proposing to the parliament. It is extremely rare for reform proposals to have the unanimous support of everyone, but we believe that the government has got the balance right with the reforms that we're putting forward. We believe it is manifestly in the public interest to establish this one-stop-shop efficient complaints resolution process for consumers and small business.
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, ASFA, gave us a briefing—and, as I've said a couple of times, they have acknowledged that in their discussions with the minister they have been able to achieve some success and some of the outcomes they wanted. But they make it really clear that they believe the implementation process is going to be rushed with a July 2018 commencement date. ASFA considers that the bill should specify a commencement date for the scheme no earlier than 1 January 2019 or provide for at least six months notice of any milestone in the transition process. Is the implementation going to be rushed with a July 2018 guideline for commencement, and do you accept ASFA's criticisms in this regard?
No and no.
I will point out that the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia is both the for-profit and the not-for-profit part of the super industry. Your government has been very critical and has brought considerable legislation before this place to try and break apart the business model of the not-for-profit industry super sector, but this organisation covers the banks and financial services as well as the not-for-profit sector. I would have thought, with a key body like ASFA, you would have at least noted and discussed with them a change to the implementation date and made sure this process wasn't rushed.
ASFA also note that they remain concerned with the indication that, where the SCT has not made a final determination on a complaint, the complainant will be able to withdraw their complaint and instead progress it via a complaint to AFCA. This raises the prospect of what they call forum shopping. It will be difficult to manage the complaints involving things such as death benefits. Given the complexity of the transition for superannuation, do you accept ASFA's criticisms in this regard?
No. Among other things, the whole point of this reform of creating a one-stop shop is to improve consistency of decision-making in relation to these sorts of dispute-resolution processes and to stop the problems that come with forum shopping.
I will put a couple of questions to you that have come more broadly from other stakeholders to us around the inclusion of the SCT in this new body—issues that haven't been resolved to the satisfaction of those stakeholders in the superannuation industry. For example, Industry Super Australia has expressed concerns that the new arrangements could result in superannuation trustees and therefore the members of these funds subsidising an EDR process primarily used by non-superannuation financial providers. They expressed the concern that this is in conflict with trustees' obligations, including their obligation to act in the interest of all members. They have also highlighted that they believe this issue may be challenged in the Federal Court. Does the minister accept this criticism? How has the minister consulted with ISA on this issue?
No, we don't accept the criticism. We are confident in the legal and constitutional position in relation to what is in front of the parliament. There has been very broad consultation, in particular and most importantly, through the independent Ramsay review.
The Law Council of Australia, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, Industry Super Australia, the ACTU and the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand either oppose the abolition of the SCT or have raised concerns about protections that are not included in the new bill or process. One of the protections that was in place under the current situation was the capacity to go to an administrative review. What replaces the administrative review?
The whole point of this process is to ensure that decisions are binding and final. There is a process of internal review, as I've indicated in response to a previous question, but that is obviously something that is deliberately not part of this process.
To me, that just demonstrates that, if all of those organisations have concerns about this issue, the need to have an administrative review of any decision is an important aspect of protection for someone seeking a decision. I'm concerned that the Xenophon Team are saying that it's going to be far more effective, when, obviously, the current situation provides individuals and families with more protection than this bill does. As I understand it, the only review is to the Federal Court on a matter of law. Is that the situation?
That's right. Let me go back to what I said right at the beginning when I dealt with these issues when Senator Cameron moved his amendments. Under our one-stop shop, consumers will be able to approach one body to resolve all financial disputes, eliminating uncertainty, confusion and inconsistency of outcomes and the cross-referral of disputes between bodies. Where a complaint covers multiple providers within the financial system, managing these complaints will be smoother. This provides efficient and binding outcomes. But, yes, the answer to Senator Cameron's question about the circumstances in which a review by the Federal Court could occur is that that is accurate.
So, basically, we'll move from a tribunal with an administrative review process to a private body that can make a decision, and the only redress someone has if that decision is, in their view, not appropriate is to go to the Federal Court. I would state that the bulk of Australian families in the superannuation system have very modest superannuation accounts and modest means. For them to have the Federal Court as the only avenue of redress—which means expensive lawyers, litigation and thousands of dollars a day—is clearly a step backwards in the context of the existing tribunal.
This is one of the key issues for us in the context of ensuring that we have dispute resolution appeal processes that are not only efficient but also cost-effective. For this government to simply push an individual to the Federal Court, with the associated costs relating to a Federal Court hearing, is, I think, an absolute disgrace. For all the rhetoric that we had from the minister about efficiency and getting consistency, I think this is a backwards step. So, Minister, can you just outline what the process of appeal to the Federal Court includes?
I think we're going round and round in circles now. The government has been very up-front, right from the word go. In fact, in our second reading speech and again in the summing up speech today, I made the point that the whole purpose of this one-stop shop proposal through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority is to ensure that consumers and small businesses have access to free, fast and binding dispute resolution, and it's of course part of the government's broader commitment to ensure that consumers and small business can have any legitimate grievances against banks or financial institutions more generally resolved in a timely, efficient and conclusive manner. The purpose is not to replicate a parallel judicial structure. So the intention is for this to offer an avenue for consumers and small business to get access to a free and very efficient dispute resolution process. Obviously, the aspiration is that this dispute resolution process will be effective in resolving all legitimate disputes.
I would, again, say that the overwhelming majority of submissions to the Ramsay review supported this approach and expressed concern about the proposal to persist with a statutory tribunal because it would be too legalistic, inflexible and costly, delivering worse outcomes for consumers. That includes key consumer groups, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and Financial Counselling Australia. They have all indicated that their primary position remains that the best framework for dispute resolution in the financial system is a single industry ombudsman scheme for all disputes, including superannuation disputes. As far as access to the Federal Court is concerned, that is a matter of the usual processes applying.
Thanks. Minister, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal currently has an unlimited and uncapped jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to superannuation. Will there be a financial cap on the disputes that come before this new tribunal?
No. There will be no financial cap. The capacity for the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to hear disputes in relation to super is on the same terms as for the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—that is, it is uncapped.
In relation to the appointments to this new body, will the government be consulting widely about the appointments? Will the government consult with the ACTU? Will the government consult with other political parties? Will the government consult with the opposition in relation to the appointments to this tribunal?
I'm advised that the government has sought nominations for appointment from 19 industry bodies. As is the case for appointments of this nature, the relevant ministers responsible for these appointments will consult as appropriate.
In relation to that question about appointments to the board, will there be appropriate representation for the not-for-profit superannuation sector? Has the government considered a separate AFCA superannuation panel that has appropriate expertise in its representation?
Sorry. Could you repeat that?
In relation to Senator Cameron's question, will you, in your appointments and your process, include not-for-profit representation in terms of the superannuation system, if it gets included? And would you consider a separate AFCA superannuation panel with appropriate expert representation, including not-for-profit representation?
The legislation in front of the Senate requires equal representation of industry and consumer representatives. The minister will make judgements based on the merit of nominees that come forward.
This is my concern, Minister. Your government has been waging a war against the not-for-profit sector in superannuation—the industry super sector. We've had two sets of legislation before this place in recent weeks. We've had them over a year ago. There has been all sorts of rhetoric around the announcement of a royal commission and inclusion in the terms of reference that a commission can go after the not-for-profit industry super sector, and here you're saying the minister is going to consult and then appoint experts to the board however she chooses—presumably, if she's still minister when this organisation gets set up. Will you include not-for-profit representation, because it is the not-for-profit part of the super sector that your government has done everything it can to try to dismantle?
Firstly, I need to correct Senator Whish-Wilson's perception. It does come under the purview of ministers in the elected government to make these sorts of judgements on behalf of the Australian people. The minister will make a one-off appointment of the independent chair and a minority of the board, and the ongoing composition of the board is going to be a matter for the board itself.
Minister, I think this is a key question. I just want to continue on from where Senator Whish-Wilson finished. You're aware of the history of the establishment of the superannuation industry in this country. It came about in the early 1980s, when the ACTU and the trade union movement became absolutely sick and tired of a proposition where only, or predominantly, white-collar workers had access to superannuation and blue-collar workers had limited or no access to superannuation.
I indicated earlier—not in this debate but in previous debates—that I was employed by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales as a maintenance fitter at Liddell power station, and my superannuation was the first superannuation I ever earned or achieved as a blue-collar worker in Australia. For about 10 years prior, I think, I worked in various industries and in various companies with no access to superannuation whatsoever. When I left the Electricity Commission of New South Wales, I was denied the Electricity Commission's contribution to my superannuation because I left that company. At that stage, I think the Electricity Commission's contribution to my superannuation was about $17,000, and that $17,000 from about 1981 would have been a significant amount in my and my family's superannuation now.
That was a regular situation that blue-collar workers found themselves in. It was called vesting. There was no vesting of the company's contribution to the worker if they left their existing employment, so they just lost their superannuation, other than the contribution that they themselves had made. So all I received when I left was the contribution I had made in addition to the Electricity Commission's contribution, which significantly disadvantaged me and disadvantaged my family. That was typical of how blue-collar workers were treated in relation to superannuation.
One of my first jobs as a union official for the then metal workers union was to go out and fight for superannuation entitlements and the vesting of superannuation for workers across the country. The coalition at that time opposed superannuation applying generally to workers. Their position has been ongoing as one of opposition to industry superannuation funds and opposition to increases for workers to make sure that they could retire with dignity.
My view is that this is another aspect of this government's ideological opposition to superannuation. This is an ideological opposition to industry superannuation funds that have, in most places, 50 per cent of representation from workers and 50 per cent of representation from employers. It's an industry that has delivered on average, over many, many years, about a 2½ per cent yield to workers through the superannuation on a regular basis. This is an industry—that is, the industry super funds—that regularly and consistently outperforms the private sector superannuation funds run predominantly by the banking industry.
As a result of the history of superannuation and the involvement of the trade union movement in providing that benefit to workers across the country, they had a say and a contribution to make to the superannuation industry. The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal was one of those contributions where the ACTU, the trade union movement and the employers were engaged in its establishment. Now, we see this being moved out from a tribunal—a government oversight body—to the private sector, which again is part of the ideological position that this government adopts consistently and unfailingly. We've seen the results of this transfer of public oversight and public bodies through the competition policy and privatisation taking place regularly under this government.
One of the areas that I think should be maintained, and the Labor Party believes should be maintained, given the history of superannuation, is the continuation of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. NXT came in here earlier and made some assertions how this would be more efficient and more effective. The minister has made similar assertions. But when you look around at the tragic contribution that company policy and privatisation has made in other industries and in other areas, then you see that it is not as ideologically pure and effective as some of the acolytes of privatisation and competition policy would have us believe. You've only got to look at the disastrous position in the VET training sector and at VET FEE-HELP to understand that the theory of academics and ideologues is not always represented in the practical outcomes of these changes.
Again, I take the view, and Labor takes the view, that it is the ideologues in the government and the ideologues in the private sector who want this tribunal to be put into a private-sector body that will not deliver. I just don't see the rhetoric that the minister has outlined being deliverable in that there is not going to be any consultation, by the looks of it, with the industry in terms of people who go onto this board. There will be no consultation with the ACTU, who were fundamentally responsible for creating the superannuation system, along with the Labor government at the time. These are some of the underpinning issues that we want to deal with. I want to ask the minister a couple of general questions on this. Can the minister confirm that the new dispute resolution caps—the limits on the value of disputes that can be heard by AFCA—are not specified in the legislation for non-superannuation disputes?
Yes, I can confirm that. As we've indicated, they'll be in the terms of reference in order to provide maximum flexibility to adjust them over time.
Can the minister put on the record the new caps that will apply under the AFCA scheme?
They have been publicly announced. They were in the minister's press release announcing the relevant changes some time ago. AFCA will commence with significantly higher monetary limits than the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Credit and Investments Ombudsman. AFCA will have a claim limit of $1 million and a compensation cap of $500,000 for non-superannuation disputes. That is almost double what is currently in place for small business credit facility disputes. AFCA will be able to consider complaints related to a credit facility of up to $5 million and award compensation of up to $1 million. This is triple what is currently in place. There will also be no monetary limits for disputes about whether a guarantee should be set aside—whether it has been supported by a mortgage or other security of the guarantor's primary place of residence. There will continue to be no monetary limits or compensation caps for superannuation disputes. The government does not support extending the compensation limit for non-superannuation disputes to $3 million at this point, but, because in the future these matters will be governed by the terms of reference, there will be flexibility to make adjustments as appropriate in the future.
How can the government guarantee that these will be implemented? What are the processes that will be undertaken to guarantee the implementation of these caps if they're not in the scheme?
As I've already indicated, they will be reflected in the terms of reference.
The CHAIR: The first question is that division 3 in item (2), and items (5) to (10), (12), (15) to (30), (42), (43), (45), (46) and (52) to (57) of schedule 1, and schedule 3, stand as printed.
Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.
Senator Polley did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash
Senator Bilyk did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
I'm now going to put the second question to the voices. The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Cameron be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I just flag for the chamber that the government's view is that the vote that just occurred does not reflect the will of the chamber. I'm just flagging that it is likely that the government will seek to recommit this vote once we've ascertained why the vote that just happened did not reflect the will of the chamber.
I'm not sure why this would not have reflected the will of the chamber. If the minister can explain now why this has not reflected the will of the chamber, it might assist the chamber.
My initial advice from the whip is that, on the basis of some confusion during the division about which side of the chamber the Nick Xenophon Team would be voting on, one of our senators was sent out when he shouldn't have been sent out, and he wasn't able to come back into the chamber on time. That was Senator Scullion. The whip is just confirming that that is what has happened.
The CHAIR: Just for clarity, I take it you are referring to the question on the first part of that amendment?
The amendment is an amendment as a whole; it was just taken in two parts: one was that the bill stand as printed, to which we voted yes, and the other, which is consequential and related, was the one on which the government voted no. But, even though we had an indication that the Nick Xenophon Team would be supporting the government's position against the amendments, on the basis that for a period it looked as though the Nick Xenophon Team was seated on the other side—eventually they moved over—in informal communications that happened across the chamber, I am advised by our duty whip that somebody was sent out from our side who should not have been sent out, and he wasn't able to get back into the chamber on time.
If I could actually clarify the situation—I understood that the Nick Xenophon Team was with us. I confirmed that with Senator Griff. He then went and said that, no, that was wrong. Senator Scullion was sent out on that basis, so what I did was pair Senator Bilyk with Senator Scullion, and I did not count Senator Bilyk in that count.
If my understanding of this is correct—and I don't doubt what Senator Urquhart or Senator Cormann have said—there is some question about whether the will of the chamber has been correctly reflected. In those circumstances, it is not unusual, once a bit of humble pie has been eaten, to recommit the vote. If that's necessary, I will support that.
I seek leave to recommit the vote for the opposition amendments that were just divided on.
Leave granted.
The CHAIR: The question is that division 3 in item 2, and items (5) to (10), (12), (15) to (30), (42), (43), (45), (46) and (52) to (57) of schedule 1, and schedule 3 stand as printed.
Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.
Senator Polley did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash
Senator Bilyk did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
The question now is that the amendments as moved by Senator Cameron be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Progress reported.
I rise today to speak briefly about the life of Robert Malcolm Harper, who recently passed away in my home state of Queensland. Bob Harper was a giant in our political movement and previously in what was the predecessor Liberal Party in Queensland. Whilst we lose many colleagues and members over our time in parliament, I think there are very few who whose lives were so exceptional that they attract a speech onto the Hansard. But in the case of Bob Harper, that is particularly warranted.
It could be said that Bob was born with Liberal blood in his veins. His parents bestowed upon him the names of two of their personal friends—one being Sir Robert Menzies, and the other Bob's godfather, Sir Malcolm Ritchie, who was the founding president of the Australian Liberal Party. Bob was the youngest of four children, with brother and sisters Neville, Dot and Jan, and he was born to Neville and Hazel Harper at Nundah Private Hospital in Brisbane. And, with the exception of his experiences in the bush—where he worked for a long period of time at Wandoan on a cattle property; his brother, Neville, was a respected minister in the Queensland parliament at that stage in Bob's life—most of his life has been concentrated in and about metropolitan Brisbane. In 1972 Bob married his darling wife, Rhonda. I attended his funeral, and there was evidence that Rhonda was not an easy catch for Bob: he had to spend some serious time in pursuit of the woman who went on to be his darling wife for so many decades.
As I deliver this speech, I will add that many of my colleagues from the Liberal-National Party in Queensland have contacted me this week to ensure that it is on the record that they support my speech. In particular, Senator McGrath wanted me to note that he attaches himself to my remarks, and will be delivering a tribute of his own to Bob in the fullness of time.
Bob's love of family and of his wife were matched only by his love of politics. It's fair to say that Bob devoted his life to politics, both as an active member of a political movement and by going on to represent his local area in the state parliament. Of course, this is after Bob had run for the state seat of Nudgee in Queensland. During the course of that campaign he was chased down the road by a man with an axe. Despite this, Bob persisted in his pursuit of politics not only as a member of the state legislature but also—in my time knowing Bob, and for so many of his friends and colleagues—as a very serious and influential honorary member of our political movement, to which he devoted so much of his time over such a long period of time. Bob was the second-ever nominated life member of the Liberal-National Party on amalgamation, behind the father of the party, the honourable Lawrence Springborg. With an inaugural party membership that touched on some 14,000 people, to be granted the second-ever life membership—second only to the father of the party—I think in and of itself speaks massive volumes about Bob's contribution.
As a state member, he made terrific inroads for his electorate: he got the Mount Ommaney Police Station—this is now a thriving, quite dense suburb in Brisbane in my home state—the Centenary State High School and the war memorial for his constituents. He served as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and then as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer. Bob lost his seat in 1998; however, that wasn't the end of his political career. He went on to administer the office of our current Attorney-General. Bob's devotion over a long period of time and over many thousands of hours needs to be properly noted.
Bob was, I think, almost without peer as a campaigner in my home state, particularly in state politics; although he was responsible for supporting many of our federal members, and I think can be credited with maintaining two of our federal seats and at least one of our state seats. That was as a direct result of his stewardship.
I think what most of us will recall about Bob Harper is the intense honesty of the man. Bob always believed that politics played a significantly important role in the stability of our communities and he believed that the people ought to know what was on the minds of candidates who were seeking their endorsement in this framework of representative democracy as we know it. Bob believed that the calibre of the candidates came first. He often successfully supported candidates.
Bob was a man of great influence. You hear about people having the numbers around political parties. Bob had his share and someone else's at most times. Particularly in metropolitan seats, he had great influence around the success or otherwise of candidates. I know from conversations that I had with him over a long period of time about the value that Bob put on the family circumstances of candidates, people who were experienced in business and in life. He would always come back to where he started and say that they had to reflect the standards and values of honesty and integrity that people expected of themselves and therefore expected in their members of parliament.
He was a strong man, although he presented himself in a gentle form. Bob wasn't prone to raising his voice or inflicted by one of the conditions that I suffer from, from time to time: using shearers' language. He put his cases very simply and plainly, and as a result he was much respected and had great influence. When I started, I said Bob was a true warrior. There are so many things that attract people into political life and political influence; but it's the true warriors and the true believers, who believe in the ideology and the value that they believe that their political franchise or political movement brings to life, who are the most dangerous. They don't bend, they don't sway and they don't come in the dead of night. They are out there and rely upon their intellect and their ability to communicate their position and their own great personal values. This fellow was front and centre, and head and shoulders, above his peers in relation to his approach to this. He believed in his state and he believed in his nation, and it reflected the way that he operated. He wasn't just a true warrior; he was an inspiration to multiple generations of political activists and practitioners on the conservative side of politics. He was a campaigner extraordinaire. There was no question about that. I think many who didn't know him personally but remember him professionally will remember that first and foremost.
More importantly, he was a devoted husband, father, grandfather and uncle to so many. His three daughters paid him the most enormous tribute at his funeral. I leaned over to my wife and said, 'If there's a possibility, I want to hire those three girls to deliver the eulogy at my funeral.' It was a wonderful, moving presentation by those girls. Bob will be fondly remembered and respected, notwithstanding that he's no longer with us. He made a substantial contribution to state and national affairs. I say: Bob, you'll be well remembered respectfully by so many of us.
A decade ago, a handful of activists sat down in the Melbourne suburbs. They were inspired by the success of the international campaign to ban landmines, which had played a major role in the negotiation of the anti-personnel mine ban convention. They wondered if a similar campaign could achieve progress in banning nuclear weapons. Ten years later that small room of activists is now a network of hundreds of NGOs and their aspiration for a nuclear-free world is now the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which had been signed by 122 countries as of July this year. And a month ago, their organisation, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It is an amazing achievement. I congratulate them and I want to spend some time today talking about their project.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has a long history in Australia. It is a history that is inextricably bound up in the political tradition of the Labor left, which I am proud to be a part of. At the heart of that history is Tom Uren. He was a giant of the Labor left, and I am grateful to have received Tom's support and advice over many years. At the close of World War II, Tom was a prisoner of war in a camp 80 kilometres away from Nagasaki, and he witnessed the dropping of the atomic bomb. He later said, 'It reminded me of those beautiful crimson skies of sunsets in Central Australia, but magnified about 10 times stronger, and it's vividly—it's never left me.'
The events of that day left Tom with convictions that he took with him into the parliament, into cabinet and into his advocacy. As he said when he retired from parliament, the struggle for nuclear disarmament is the most important struggle in the human race. It's a struggle that the activists of ICAN stepped into when they organised in their Carlton room 10 years ago. It is also a struggle that has grown no less urgent since Tom retired from parliament in 1990. Any hope that the post Cold War world would be nuclear free has been well and truly dashed. We've seen the nuclear-armed states grow. We've seen weapons appear in the hands of nations that position themselves deliberately outside of the international order. Just last week, there were reports of another test of an intercontinental ballistic missile by North Korea.
Against that backdrop, the work that ICAN has done in driving a treaty against nuclear weapons is more important than ever. I'm not naive about this; the treaty is only able to achieve so much in the absence of agreement from nuclear powers. There is still a lot to be done. In noting this, I want to point to the thoughtful and persistent work undertaken by people like Gareth Evans with the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament in getting to zero. The international consensus that ICAN has managed to drive and document through the treaty process is remarkable, and the fact that it has been awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize endorses the scale of the vision shared by those activists years ago. There's something very powerful about the idea that ICAN represents.
Quite often, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to an individual—someone who has used their power or their platform to achieve a worthy end. However, ICAN is something very different. It didn't inherit any pre-existing platform; it willed it into existence through a gradual accretion of individuals and organisations to its cause. At its heart, ICAN is a coalition of people who care. It represents one of the best manifestations of civil society. In many ways, the Nobel Peace Prize committee has done more than just recognise ICAN as an organisation; it has recognised the contribution that determined people can make when they take concerted and collective action. Nuclear disarmament sits at the crossroads of very complex political, diplomatic and military issues. This is far from being low-hanging fruit, but the success that ICAN has had in marshalling support for the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons demonstrates the real power that civil society can have in achieving change.
ICAN, of course, is not the only example of civil society, and here in Australia there are countless groups dedicated to driving change in how we care for the environment or animals, how we address climate change or how we care for vulnerable people. As a senator, it is one of my great privileges to meet with representatives of those groups. I am always impressed by how passionate they are about making a difference.
I want to reflect on the contribution that they make to our political discourse in Australia because, unfortunately, civil society is under threat from the government. First, under Prime Minister Abbott, and now under Prime Minister Turnbull, the coalition government has exhibited relentless hostility towards civil society. Some years ago, there was a push to strip environmental groups of their standing, to intervene in court matters. More recently, there has been talk of denying charitable status to organisations that engage in advocacy and try to change the government position on crucial issues. This government has forced social services charities that deliver government services to sign gag clauses that prevent them from speaking out on policy issues. Only this week, we've seen charities warn of the chilling effect that mooted changes to donation laws will have on their ability to speak out, to advocate and to argue for vulnerable people. This is frightening.
This government seems to think that the only role for charities should be to provide services that the government can't be bothered to provide. From that perspective, if people have a political view, their option should be to join the local Liberal Party branch, where, from everything I've heard, any ideas are promptly ignored. I think this view of charities and NGOs is wrongheaded and dangerous. Civil society plays a unique and important role in public debate, and we should distinguish charities from some of the other advocates in the political system.
Our public debate is often populated by actors who represent particular interest groups—industry associations, peak bodies, business organisations, employer organisations and things like that. These organisations are important. They have an important voice in public policy, but they are not constituted to advance the public interest. Very explicitly, their role is to advance their members' interests. In principle, there's nothing wrong with that; nothing at all. It's very important that we hear the voices of those who may be affected by a particular decision or policy, and I appreciate greatly the interactions that I have with bodies of this kind. But we can distinguish between this and NGOs and other kinds of organisations.
There should be a place in our public discourse for people who aren't motivated by self-interest but are instead motivated by their vision for what we can and should be. There is a role for civil society. The work of these organisations can and should be more than just stunts and gesture politics. Like ICAN, these organisations are at their best when they build a coalition for change through the hard grind of advocacy and through the hard grind of those meetings that change one mind at a time. As the Nobel prize committee recognised, that work can make a real difference. It can create change.
I rise today to speak about the impact and influence of donations on the politics and governments of this country, and I start by reflecting on a woman who resides in Adelaide, who has become quite notorious for her full-page ads in the AdelaideAdvertiser, Ms Sally Zou. We don't know much about Sally Zou, but here is what we do know. We know that she is a Chinese national. We know that she has a strong interest in mining, with the rights to develop four mines across the country. We know that she is wealthy—very wealthy. Her business dealings through companies like AusGold Mining Group are opaque and unusual. Her former accountant told the ABC some weeks ago:
I've been 45 years in the mining industry, of which all were spent basically accounting and administration, [and] I've never seen a bank account conducted the way the AusGold bank account was conducted.
Money went in; all of a sudden, money went out. We know that late last year and earlier this year funding for her business seemed to dry up. It meant no money to pay staff and contractors for months. We know that this sudden evaporation of funding coincided with a crackdown from the Chinese government on funds leaving the country.
We also know, of course, that Sally Zou is a big fan of the Liberal Party. She even went out of her way to set up the Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation, which was apparently established without the knowledge of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, despite bearing her name and despite the fact that Ms Zou has met with the minister on multiple occasions. We know Ms Zou was willing to put her money where her mouth is to the tune of $750,000 in donations to the Liberal Party over the last two years. She is one of the largest donors to the Prime Minister's own political party, and we know nothing about where that money came from. We don't know why it was donated or what Ms Zou expects in return.
Yesterday, the Acting Special Minister of State announced the Turnbull Government would overhaul the regulation of foreign donations. The minister said that it was in an effort to crack down on 'inappropriate foreign interference in our democratic system'. He made the connection explicit: foreign donations risk foreign influence. But the connection raises more questions than it answers. What is it about a donation that makes it possible to interfere with our democratic system? Is it the amount, the identity of the donor or the nationality of the donor, or is it the donation itself and what is expected in return? If the government is concerned about 'inappropriate foreign interference in our democratic system', what level of foreign interference is appropriate and what is the government's real concern? Foreign companies asking for public handouts to open one of the world's largest coalmines in Queensland, aka Adani? The fact that our democratic system is being interfered with, is that the government's concern? Or is it just about scoring quick political points? Is the government okay as long as the people who are interfering aren't foreigners?
If the government honestly want us to believe that they are worried about the interference that donations make on our democratic system, then they've got to get fair dinkum about cleaning up donations across the board—those coming from domestic money as much as those coming from overseas. If we want to crack down on interference, we've got to get real about what the problem is. We know that the legislation mooted by the government is dressed up as a crackdown on foreign donations. Of course, we should have a ban on foreign donations to political parties, particularly when, as the minister has said himself, he's worried about interference. Yet, on the other hand, of course, the Liberal Party are willing to take $750,000 from one person—no idea where the money's come from; no idea what it's for. The nasty sting in the tail in what the government have announced yesterday is that this is a crackdown not on donations to political parties but on civil participation and the idea of charities here in Australia being able to do their work. We know that what the government have listed will crack down on charities like World Vision being able to do important work here and overseas. We know that it will make it difficult for not-for-profit organisations like Amnesty International to do their good work in raising issues of human rights and democratic participation. Who knows what influence this will have on the good and important work of the Red Cross. We know, of course, that the government want to swing the axe at environmental NGOs across the board.
The government's proposal recognises that money buys you influence—and that big money buys you influence. This move from the government says that, if you're a New Zealander who lives in Australia and you want to donate to a political party, you can't, but that it's okay to keep taking money from big tobacco, gambling companies, the gambling lobby or mining corporations. The Liberal government, the Liberal Party themselves, have taken $2 million from big tobacco since 1998. They've taken $15 million from mining and resource companies since 1998. Why did those companies donate to the Liberal Party? What kind of influence did they want to buy?
Let's not get fooled here: this is all smoke and mirrors from this government in relation to what they are dressing up as political donation reform. It's not reform of political donations; it's an attack on civil society. If they want to get serious about the influence of political donations, they need to identify what the real problem is—and that's political parties doing the bidding of those donors who continue to donate to them in large numbers. Fixing the problem means actually identifying what the problem is. Foreign donations are a problem because donations are influential, and so are donations given here in Australia. The government have willingly and consistently taken donations. For example, there was $750,000 from Ms Sally Zou, a foreign national—'But we don't know where the money came from; we don't know what it's for.' There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.
If the government thinks donations interfere with democracy, how about saying that we'll stop donations from those insidious, greedy, democratically-bullying mining and resource companies straightaway? It is this type of political donation that exerts huge influence on the politics in this place, and the public know it. Talk to anybody on the street and they will say that what's wrong with politics is trust and the fact that government and political parties don't act for the people because they're too busy looking after the mates who paid them to get there. That's the problem. It's not just about whether the donation was in one currency or another; it's about why the donation was given and what the donor wants in return. A new coalmine in Queensland? Mining rights in South Australia? The right to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight in South Australia? If you want to clean up political donations and democracy in this country, it's time the Prime Minister got serious about where the influence is really coming from.
At the outset, I want to associate myself completely with the very moving tribute made by my colleague Senator O'Sullivan about Bob Harper, a very fine man who did so much so selflessly for the Liberal Party in Queensland and then the Liberal National Party for Brisbane and, indeed, for the state of Queensland. My condolences to Rhonda and his family. Unfortunately, Lesley and I were unable to make the funeral, but we were there in spirit with our many, many colleagues in the Liberal Party and Liberal National Party who did attend that celebration of Bob's life. Rest in peace, Bob Harper.
I did want to, in this opportunity today, say a few words about something I know Bob Harper would have been very interested in—that is, the recent Queensland election. The election is almost done and dusted. I understand, as I speak, the electoral officials are counting preferences in a number of very close seats. They are very close seats. It does seem that the Labor Party will be returned to government in Queensland for another three years, not four years, because the election was held before Christmas, despite promises made by the Premier that it wouldn't be. If it hadn't been held before Christmas, it would have been a four-year term for the next government. But, fortuitously, perhaps, it will only be three years that the state has to endure a continuation of the Labor Party government in Queensland.
I do congratulate all members who have been elected and I do also want to congratulate all people who offered themselves for election at the Queensland election. I particularly want to congratulate my local state member, Mr Dale Last, who, against overwhelming odds, was able to retain the seat of Burdekin, a redistributed seat now taking in the Bowen Basin coalfields, the mining towns of Moranbah and Middlemount—other Labor-voting areas. Dale was able to win in a very fine personal effort against the preferences, I have to say, of not only the Labor Party and the Greens but also the One Nation candidate, who was, I regret to say, formerly a member of the Liberal National Party in the state parliament for the electorate of Thuringowa. In spite of One Nation in that seat preferencing the Labor Party, Dale Last was able to achieve success in Burdekin. I congratulate him.
Similarly, I congratulate my friend Jason Costigan, who won the seat of Whitsunday, immediately adjacent to the south of the seat of Burdekin. Again, it was against overwhelming odds. It was a huge effort by the Labor Party, the unions and GetUp! and, regrettably, also by One Nation, who, again, preferenced against him. In the seat of Whitsunday, Jason Costigan had all the parties preferencing against him. Yet, because he is such a wonderful campaigner and such a wonderful representative of his people, and someone who knows everybody and can speak to everybody, he was able to overcome those odds and succeed.
Also, I want to specifically congratulate another friend of mine, David Crisafulli, who won a seat in the northern Gold Coast area. And he won it in great style, as I know David is capable of doing. He returns to the Queensland parliament now. I look forward to a successful future for him.
I have to say that I am so disappointed with the Katter political party and the One Nation party. For years, they had proclaimed their disdain for the Labor government and, yet, chose to give them preferences. In most of the seats in North Queensland, those preferences counted. Regrettably, although the counting is occurring as I speak, it seems unlikely that Andrew Cripps, the member for Hinchinbrook, will be able to retain his seat against a combined assault by Katter, One Nation, the Labor Party and Greens. Yet, it was Mr Cripps who, in the Newman government, led the charge to undo those land-clearing laws that were a disaster for rural holders in Queensland. I just cannot believe the number of farmers who voted for Katter and voted for One Nation, and preferenced the Labor Party against this man who did so much for them. He was the one who actually did something serious about water storage on the Flinders River, something Labor parties have talked about for ages but have never been game to do, because the Greens won't let them. Andrew Cripps actually put in place a scheme to harvest water from the Flinders River.
The election result isn't yet finalised, but over the last three or four years the main issues in the Townsville area have been lack of water, crime and lack of employment. I have to say, I think Tim Nicholls ran a wonderful and workman-like campaign with some excellent policies. He had solutions for all of those issues, yet it appears at this stage that the citizens of Townsville have chosen to return three Labor members, who have sat there for years doing absolutely nothing about water, about crime and about unemployment.
It's interesting that in Townsville, which so desperately needs Adani—and the public campaign for Adani has been so huge—the result in end is that the people of Townsville chose members from a party who, it seems, now oppose the Adani project. Again, it's the Labor Party dealing with big business and big unions, forgetting about small business and forgetting about people who have lost their jobs because of the mining downturn and who saw a lifeline with the Adani project. The people of Townsville have ignored that. I suspect that the state Labor government will now not support the Adani project. Nobody quite knows where they are on it, because they've had so many different positions. I point out that the Adani mine is in the electorate of Burdekin, which is my state electorate, and that electorate voted for a party that strongly supports the job creation prospects that Adani would bring.
The Liberal-National Party had a number of very good proposals for the north to address crime and to address water shortages. In fact, in many instances, they were following what the federal coalition has done in the Townsville region. We've provided money for feasibility studies for water projects. We can't actually do the water projects. As everyone knows, water, streams and rivers are the constitutional responsibility of state governments. The federal government has actively supported feasibility studies and encouraged the building of facilities like the Rookwood Weir, just to mention one. As well as that, we've promised money for the eastern rail corridor in Townsville and for the stadium. We've opened the CRC for northern Australia in Townsville. We've substantially contributed to Cowboys House, which is doing a wonderful job in Townsville. We've given a lot of money to Palm Island to help those people be able to help themselves. Above all, we've set up a $5 billion investment arm to encourage investment in northern Australia, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I had hoped that our state governments might have been there to action and support the federal government's activities in the north. That doesn't appear, at this moment, to be the case. But the federal government will continue to support the north for the betterment of all northerners.
I wish to make some comments in relation to a duty of care for those in custody and particularly first nation peoples. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, after considering what happened in the lives of 99 first nation peoples, recommended that governments ensure that police services, correctional services and authorities in charge, particularly of juvenile centres, recognise that they owe a legal duty to the persons in their custody. But the standing instructions to the officers in those authorities specify that each officer included in the arrest, incarceration or supervision of a person in custody has a legal duty of care to that person and may be held legally responsible for the death or injury of the person caused or contributed to by the breach of that duty. They also specify that those authorities ensure that such officers are aware of their responsibilities and are trained appropriately to meet them, both on recruitment and during their service.
A duty of care is an obligation of officials who have another human being in their legal custody. It is a heavy burden and requires great diligence in its execution. The Crown has a duty of care to its citizens, and that's to all its citizens. Citizens generally reciprocate through their responsibilities and obligations in a civil society. In our modern democratic society, this balance is essential to its quality and to the essential ethics by which it behaves.
When people come into contact with the justice system, particularly the criminal justice system, through some form of custody, the state has a responsibility to keep them safe, because their normal freedoms are removed or severely restricted. But it seems that this is not always made clear to public servants in the domain of criminal justice—police officers, custodial offices, nurses and other agents—and it's not kept in the front of their minds.
Whilst the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory did not deal with deaths in custody, it had much to say about the lack of duty of care and the breaching of human rights standards. Let me highlight a couple of tragic, reprehensible, recent incidents where death in custody has occurred. I apologise in advance to the families and friends who may be watching this or hearing about this for raising the names and the circumstances of their loved ones.
On August 2014, Ms Dhu, 22-year-old Aboriginal woman, was taken into police custody and detained at the South Hedland police station because she hadn't paid some fines. In two days time she would be dead. When she sang out in pain, begging for medical help, the people in charge said they thought she was faking it. She was taken to hospital. The hospital sent her back to the cells. Footage showed her being dragged across the floor of the cell, apparently unconscious and then into a corridor where she was then carted by her arms and legs into the back of a police van and locked inside. At the Hedland Health Campus, one hour later she was pronounced dead. She died of septicaemia—a preventable death.
In January 2012, 28-year-old Kwementyaye Briscoe was arrested for being drunk and taken to the Alice Springs watch house. A few days later he was dead. Footage showed Kwementyaye thrown across the floor by an officer, falling on the floor and bleeding to death from his head. The court was told he did not receive any medical treatment. The coroner found the police officers were utterly derelict in their duty and the death should never have happened. Kwementyaye had committed no crime and did not deserve to die like this.
Again, a lack of duty of care was highlighted in Western Australia, my home state, in 2008 in the death of Mr Ward, who died locked in the back of an unair-conditioned security van in extreme temperatures in the desert lands of the state. Mr Ward suffered third-degree burns; his skin blistered from the heat. He died a horrible death—another Aboriginal life that authorities or their agents could not be bothered with.
Earlier this year, 35-year-old Eric Whittaker lay dying in a bed in Westmead Hospital after being taken into custody. There are conflicting views as to how he sustained a head injury which led to a brain haemorrhage. Despite being declared brain dead for nearly 15 hours, the custodial officers kept his ankles in chains while the family grieved beside the bed. Do any of these examples sound like those individuals understood their duties of care? It tells me that the common law concept of duty of care is in need of greater attention and that responsibilities and penalties need to be spelt out more clearly and more often. Back in 1994, after the death of an Aboriginal man in the East Perth lockup in Perth, Western Australia, the police union secretary said:
It is totally unreasonable for police who catch the crooks to then be accountable for their welfare.
I hope that this attitude has changed.
The recent Northern Territory royal commission tells us of human rights abuses and the complacency of governments and officials that underpin the abuse of youth whilst they are in the justice detention system. The issues highlighted do not begin and end at the Northern Territory borders. The light has been shone on the darkness of Don Dale. Now it has to shine on the jurisdictions across Australia. I would just remind this chamber that, since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, over 340 first nations people have died in custody. Those in custody have no freedom and are subject to the powers of the state under the name of the Crown. I would hope Her Majesty, if she was appraised of these circumstances, would demand something be done to at least bring honour to her name and her position, if not for the first nations peoples.
The royal commissions have made it clear that not only have authorities with power neglected their duty of care but, in many cases, it would seem they have acted in opposition to it in a culture of bullying, brutality and lack of honour. The lives Ms Dhu, Mr Ward, Kwementyaye Briscoe, Eric Whittaker and many others demand better of us. The youth identified in that horrible footage and in that horrible place—Don Dale, the subject of the royal commission—certainly demand better of us. Whether it is the police, nurses, custodial services or prison officers, anyone who has control over the lives of first nations people in custody have to have a clear understanding of what their obligations are, how to fulfil their roles and be held accountable if their duties are not exercised to the highest standards of diligence and duty.
It is high time we recognise that we are facing, yet again, a national crisis in the juvenile justice domain and more generally in the criminal justice domain as far as first nations people are concerned. The time has come to consider seriously the need to legislate the common law notion of a duty of care to set out what is required and what penalties there will be for its breaches. Like the royal commission's findings and the recommendations in the Northern Territory royal commission, the way a duty of care is being exercised in custodial circumstances needs to be placed urgently on the COAG agenda.
I urge the government to take a leadership role with regard to this and to also honour its obligations in implementing and responding to the recommendations of the Northern Territory royal commission into juvenile justice. These are matters of great weight. They are concerning. They go to the reputation and heart of us as a nation. We should respond accordingly and ensure that our jurisdictions across Australia have higher standards than what we are seeing with this duty of care.
Next February, the government will announce the next price hike that will apply to health insurance. Premiums have been going up at an average of 5.6 per cent a year since 2010, more than twice of inflation. This makes health insurance increasingly unaffordable for many Australians. A significant contributor to the rising cost has been the unrestrained growth in the cost of medical implants—otherwise known as prostheses—such as replacement knees, pacemakers and heart stints. Private health insurers pay a benefit for these, and that price is not determined by the insurer or even by market forces. It is dictated solely by prices on the Prostheses List. These prices are effectively set by government on advice from the Prostheses List Advisory Committee.
The Prostheses List contains over 10,000 surgically implanted items. It specifies the minimum benefits that health insurers must pay for each prosthetic item. To the ordinary person that might see fair enough until you realise that the way in which the prices are determined is not at all clear cut and that private health insurers pay far, far more for devices than public hospitals do. Of course these higher costs are then passed on to consumers through higher private health insurance premiums.
As a participating member of the Community Affairs References Committee, which looked at price regulation associated with the Prostheses List framework, it had been my hope that the government would take decisive and comprehensive action to arrest the escalating growth in prostheses costs and that 2018 would mark the end of unaffordable private health insurance premium rises. The government has taken some initial steps to bring balance back to prostheses pricing, which it expects will result in a small lowering of premiums from April, but I'm not yet convinced it is enough to make a notable difference.
The government recently signed an agreement with the Medical Technology Association of Australia to start lowering the price of implanted medical devices from February next year. According to the government, its first tranche of price reductions earlier this year, where the price of cardiac devices and intraocular lenses were knocked down by 10 per cent and hip and knee implants were reduced by 7.5 per cent, is projected to save insurers around $86 million this year.
The second tranche takes in more devices and is expected to take the savings for insurers to an estimated $300 million a year. If it delivers as expected, this will be a solid improvement; however, it represents less than half of the $700 million in potential savings the inquiry was told could be achieved if the Prostheses List costs were brought into parity with those paid by the public system. What this means is that private patients are still effectively being ripped off.
To illustrate this further, the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority provided a report to the health minister earlier this year that showed private patients in private hospitals paid a 180 per cent premium for devices compared to public patients in public hospitals for equivalent procedures. To put it another way, the public system pays an average of $1,088 for a prosthesis compared to $3,052 in the private system. That's a variance of almost $2,000 for exactly the same prosthesis and the same procedure. Insurers pay through the nose, and the profit is shared between the manufacturers and the private hospitals. This is an outrageous rort, in anybody's books.
The government's agreement with the Medical Technology Association of Australia will run until 2022, and, incredibly, the government has pledged it will not implement any further changes to benefit levels without the agreement of the MTAA during that time. I would like to note that the MTAA is dominated by the four large multinational companies that account for almost 80 per cent of the total prostheses spend in Australia. So, for the next four years the government will have to ask the fox if it can remove chickens from the henhouse. On top of that, any new devices added to the list will be exempt from the price reductions outlined in the agreement.
Essentially, the MTAA, should it wish to, will be able to sit on this agreement for the next four years and protect its members from any further price cuts. What this says to me is that the government has gone in strong and then lost its nerve. Why did it stop there? What, if any, guarantee do consumers have that there will be further necessary reductions in prostheses prices once this agreement expires or, worse, that prices won't start to edge up again like they did some years ago?
I do acknowledge that unravelling this mess that is the Prostheses List was never going to be an easy job for anyone; but, having started, the government should have been ruthless in its efforts. This was a prime opportunity to return balance to a system that currently benefits manufacturers and, to some extent, private hospitals, through rebates and discounts all at the expense of privately insured Australians and taxpayers who help subsidise the racket through the private health insurance rebate.
The Prostheses List inquiry heard evidence from US manufacturer Applied Medical, which wanted to provide an identical prosthesis to one on the list at almost one-fifth the price—that is, $99 compared to the $450 dictated by the Prostheses List. But, as hard as it is to believe, it was forced to charge the full price by, effectively, a government committee. Insurers and taxpayers were deprived of a substantial saving because the Prostheses List has no mechanism for reducing the price for all devices in a subgroup when a new product is made available at a lower price. There is a complete market failure here.
I note that the government intends to develop and publish key performance indicators for the Prostheses List Advisory Committee, or PLAC, and its advisory committees, though not until February 2019. I also note that a working group will revise the framework for how benefits are set and reviewed and that the PLAC will review devices and benefits on the Prostheses List. However, even the PLAC acknowledges:
… each review could at a minimum, take over a year …
And, as I mentioned earlier, there will be no price reductions without the MTAA's say-so. So, any further improvements to prosthesis pricing, beyond this current agreement, will be a long, long way off, if it happens at all.
For too long, Australian health consumers have put up with the highest prices in the world for prostheses. The time has come to turn off the tap for the multinational prosthesis companies who have enjoyed excess profits at our expense. It is time to give priority to Australian health fund members and taxpayers.
Last week was a good week for the parliament and, more importantly, for the Senate. We held up our end of that grand bargain and carried out the will of the Australian people, as reflected in the national result, by legislating for marriage equality. We witnessed the best of this place and what can be achieved when parliamentarians work together for the people they serve. Our hope is that the other place can emulate the respectful and efficient manner in which this place carried out the passing of historic reform.
While many of us will be acknowledged for pushing marriage equality forward, millions of Australians, whose names and faces we will never know, had a hand in this significant chapter in our nation's great history. Their energy, passion and commitment not only gave the path to marriage equality its trajectory; it imbued it with force. Someone once said there is nothing greater, nothing more human, than 'thank you'. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to those who helped pave the way on this significant reform.
When the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey was announced, the Australian Electoral Commission added more than 98,000 new people to the electoral roll; 65,000 were aged 18 to 24. What an achievement! Thank you to all those Australians, however you voted, for participating in this democratic process, which resulted in the biggest electoral mandate our country has ever seen. The Equality Campaign was already in full swing before the postal survey forms were mailed out. The team delivered an upbeat, precise and inclusive campaign based on those cherished Australian values of equality and fairness. What I was most proud of was that the 'yes' campaign ran on a platform of positivity. They ran a campaign that connected people and started honest, heartfelt and, at times, difficult conversations and reassured Australians they had nothing to fear from marriage equality.
Many hands make light work, so I say to the countless campaigners who made phone calls, knocked on doors and spoke to relatives, friends, neighbours and colleagues, we cannot say 'thank you' enough. Thank you to those involved in the Equality Campaign, especially. Many thinks to Tim Gartrell. I know of Tim from the other side of politics, but he played a straight bat and steered the 'yes' campaign in the most positive of directions. To the co-chair of Australian Marriage Equality, Alex Greenwich, and to the co-chair of the Equality Campaign and Director of Legal Advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, Anna Brown, your advocacy and your trust throughout this campaign has been remarkable, and I'm grateful. Thank you for being the voices of a community that needed to be heard. Janine Middleton, Co-chair of Australian Marriage Equality—your experience, professionalism and compassion gave this debate a new perspective.
Thank you to Professor Kerryn Phelps and Jackie Stricker-Phelps for fighting for marriage equality over many, many years. Thank you to Tom Snow and Brook Horne for the generosity of your precious time and resources over many years—you helped keep our spirits buoyed and kept gas in the tank of the campaign. Thank you to Corey Irlam and Lee Carnie for providing the highest quality of legal insight and support and, again, for your trust, day in and day out.
Thank you to Claire Dawson, who led the coordinated parliamentary campaign across the political divide; Clint McGilvray, who carried the winning message for the campaign; and Adam Knobel for being the brains behind one of the country's best digital campaigns. Thank you to Paddy Batchelor, who directed one of Australia's largest volunteer field efforts, with more than 15,600 volunteers phoning over a million homes and knocking on over 100,000 doors. Thank you to Helen Ross-Browne and Kirk Marcolina, creators of the moving imagery that helped tell so many impactful and important human stories to other Australians. Thank you to Chris Pycroft, who brought so many LGBTI and mental health groups together for marriage equality; Ashley Hogan, who managed tens of thousands of inquiries and provided quality control for all material; and Francis Voon, who supported so many faith and multicultural groups to demonstrate that marriage equality is a key faith and multicultural value. Thank you to Shane Lloyd, who set and ran all the merchandise for the campaign and personally managed the campaign shop in Sydney.
Now, you might wonder what a sprightly Irishman might have to do with marriage equality in Australia. Tiernan Brady was responsible for the successful 'yes' result in the Irish referendum on this very issue. Tiernan's leadership, focus and ebullience kept the 'yes' campaign on track, and he found and shared human stories that changed attitudes of people throughout our country. From Carnarvon to Cairns, Bunbury to Balmain, Tiernan travelled to almost every corner of this great land to get the message out: if Australia legalises marriage equality, the sun will come up the next day and the only thing that will happen is that more people in loving, committed relationships will be able to have those relationships recognised. Thank you, Tiernan, for guiding us through this marathon, always with a smile on your face and a spring in your step.
One of the fundamental values of the Liberal Party is that of freedom of choice and freedom of the individual. Our party's president, the Hon. Nick Greiner AC, argued movingly several months ago about marriage as a classic conservative issue, reflecting on his family and how one of his children could marry but the other could not. From one Liberal to another, thank you, Nick, for your courage and forthrightness during this debate.
Former acting federal director of the Liberal Party, Andrew Bragg, leapt into action and led the Libs and Nats for Yes campaign to encourage those within the coalition to vote yes. We owe Andrew a debt of gratitude for his commitment and his leadership. I'm so glad I've made a trusted friend in Andrew.
To all those Liberals and Nationals who represented the coalition at rallies, forum and booths, I thank you for your devotion to and advocacy for the 'yes' vote.
Christine Forster is a tower of strength and a force to be reckoned with. In the face of such public scrutiny, she still held the conviction to stand up when it counted. Christine and Virginia, we cannot acknowledge your role in this national conversation enough.
Thank you to Ian Thorpe and Magda Szubanski, who put their private selves into the public sphere and showed tremendous courage, showing their authentic selves and advocating for marriage equality.
Western Australia is my home state, and, as I've previously noted in this place, my home state recorded a clean sweep in the postal survey: 16 federal seats out of 16 federal seats. This wouldn't have been possible without the tenacity of West Australians who drove the WA equality campaign. The WA 'yes' committee was instrumental in ensuring the coordination and action in the West for those who supported marriage equality. We thank Ian Kortlang, Ian Campbell, Paul Everingham, Deidre Willmott and Steve Harris for their organisation, steadfastness and enthusiasm during this campaign. Thank you for rallying the troops across Western Australia.
I would also like to recognise the invaluable work of Emma Gibbens, Paul Benson, Suzette Morris and Bevan Marwick, whose energy and eagerness for change propelled West Australians to get out and vote. And I give a very special acknowledgement to those Young Liberals who showed the real courage of their convictions: Jack, Joshua, Francois, Matthew and Julian. I salute you for your bravery.
To Mick Skender from Worldwide Printing, many thanks and appreciation for your agility and efficiency, especially with those last-minute printing requests.
When the parliamentary 'yes committee' was formed to ensure the integrity of the observation process, it was heartening that so many of my parliamentary colleagues put their hands up to help. I'm grateful that they chose me to be the convenor of that group. It was imperative that we worked diligently and expeditiously to ensure that the observation process was fair and accurately reflected the attitudes of Australians in relation to marriage equality. I would like to acknowledge the work of my parliamentary colleagues Tim Wilson, Trent Zimmerman, Terri Butler, Julian Hill and Senators Derryn Hinch, Louise Pratt, Janet Rice and Skye Kakoschke-Moore.
The observation process was long and at times exhausting. Despite endless hours and the often monotonous nature of the work, over 600,000 coded survey forms were observed by both 'yes' and 'no' official observers. While our views may have differed on the issue of marriage equality, I was happy to see that any differences between those observers could be put aside to ensure that our democratic process was quality controlled. From team 'yes', I'd especially like to thank our 62 observers, many of whom gave up precious time or travelled great distances to do their part. We cannot repay the hours, days and weeks you gave up to make sure that this important aspect of the process was executed properly—but I hope the result alone was worth it.
The observation process would not have been possible without our lead observer, Jarrod Lomas. Jarrod spent week after week wrangling excited 'yes' voters, emailing updates, filling in rosters, making calls and observing survey forms himself to uphold the integrity of the postal survey process. He set the bar from our side and led by example—professional, calm under pressure and always courteous. What a fantastic job you did, Jarrod. We thank you for your exceptional leadership and stability. Everything you did worked.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and sincerely thank the most important of institutions, this Australian parliament, who in some measure played an important role in this very important historic reform. On behalf of everyone involved in the 'yes' campaign, I pass on our congratulations on a tremendous outcome.
I was going to use my five minutes to speak on a different matter but, given the short time that's left because of the late start of Senators' Statements, I will share with the chamber some news that is just out of Tasmania. It has been revealed in Tasmanian estimates not long ago that the state's energy minister, Mr Guy Barnett—who was a former senator in this place, as I'm sure many people will remember—has directed the Tasmanian energy retailer, Aurora Energy, to spend half a million dollars mailing out 80,000 cheques worth $125 each. They are mailing out 80,000 $125 cheques to Tasmanian households, instead of giving eligible customers credits on their bill. Wouldn't it have been easier to give them a credit on their electricity bill?
It would have been cheaper.
Much, much cheaper. It wouldn't have cost half a million dollars. But, oh, no; they didn't do that. He claimed to have advice that posting a cheque—posting a cheque in today's email and e-system society—was actually cheaper and the most efficient method to make a payment than crediting the accounts.
An honourable senator: Don't you want them to get the money?
We're very happy for them to get the money, but we're asking why the Tasmanian government would spend half a million dollars mailing out cheques worth $125 when they could just as easily have allowed the electricity provider to credit these people's accounts for that exact amount, $125. During the estimates, Mr Barnett gagged the Aurora CEO when asked if Aurora had provided the advice. The Aurora CEO was asked whether or not they had provided advice on the most efficient method to do this, and the CEO was gagged during the process. This is a clear misuse of public funds and the Tasmanian Liberals should stand condemned for this shocking behaviour.
As the recent Pembroke by-election clearly demonstrated, Tasmanians are awake to these weak political tactics of the Tasmanian Liberals. They've run our health system into the ground. Not able to operate in a modern society, they spent half a million dollars mailing out 80,000 $125 cheques to people, when they could have had a credit put on those people's electricity accounts. It would have made a lot more sense for those people to have had a credit put on their account and for them to see that their account had been reduced by $125. But, no, it was apparently easier just to pay 80,000 cheques of $125. Half a million dollars is just nothing to the Tasmanian government. They run the health system into the ground but spend half a million dollars doing that. The people of Tasmania will be absolutely appalled at the Tasmanian Liberal government.
It being 2 pm, we'll move to question without notice.
Following the announcement today by Senator Gallagher that she is standing aside from the shadow ministry, I advise that the shadow Treasurer, Mr Chris Bowen, will act as shadow minister for small business and financial services. I also advise the chamber that Senator Jacinta Collins will act as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate. I table the revised shadow ministerial list and seek leave to incorporate it into the Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald entitled 'Former Liberal trade minister Andrew Robb furious about being linked with Turnbull's foreign interference laws'. Mr Robb famously took up an $880,000-a-year job with the Chinese firm Landbridge Group after retiring as the trade minister. Can the minister advise the Senate whether Mr Robb would be captured by the government's proposed foreign lobbyist registry?
Every former cabinet minister would be captured by the transparency scheme—every former cabinet minister and every former member of parliament. So, everyone in this chamber, Senator Carr, including you and me, will one day be captured by the transparency scheme if we, after parliament, agree to act on behalf of a foreign principal. That is not because there is anything wrong with taking a job to act on behalf of a foreign principal—which could include, by the way, a foreign company—but because, just like the lobbyist register, there is a public interest in the transparency of relationships between a principal, a foreign principal in this case, who gives instructions to an Australian former parliamentarian and the former parliamentarian. I think the public are very glad that the Turnbull government has moved to make more transparent than they currently are arrangements between former members of parliament and foreign principals. Mr Robb is in no different a position than every former minister—I should have qualified that, Senator Carr, by saying that the obligation lasts for three years after the former cabinet minister has left the cabinet or the former member of parliament has left the parliament. It's also, by the way, an obligation that applies to former senior public servants who have left the Public Service. Where they accept a fee or a retainer to act on behalf of a foreign principal—for instance, for lobbying purposes—the public are entitled to know that.
Senator Carr, a supplementary question?
Has the Attorney-General or any other member of the government discussed the Turnbull government's reforms with Mr Robb?
I haven't, Senator Carr, and I'm not aware of any other colleague who has.
Senator Carr, a final supplementary question?
When asked in November 2016 about Mr Robb's $880,000-a-year role with Landbridge, the minister urged others not to, 'Besmirch by innuendo an honourable man.' Is Mr Robb correct when he says that attempts to trash his reputation are, 'Now being aided and abetted by the government'?
They are not. If Mr Robb is under that impression, then he is mistaken. I think perhaps the basis of the misapprehension is a failure to appreciate that this obligation applies to every single former cabinet minister for a three-year period after they cease to be a cabinet minister, and every former member of parliament for a period of three years after they cease to be a member of parliament, in the event that they undertake to act on behalf of a foreign principal. As I said to you in response to your primary question, Senator Carr, this government believes that there is a public interest in transparency. And the reason we are introducing this transparency scheme, as part of our package of legislation to protect Australia's democracy, is so that the conduct of lobbyists, which is perfectly legal, legitimate and lawful conduct, should, nevertheless, expose transparently who their principals are.
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General provide the Senate with further information regarding the new foreign interference legislation being introduced this week?
I can, thank you, Senator Bushby. It, really, in a sense, follows from my responses to Senator Carr. As I said a moment ago to Senator Carr, this is very much a package. It is designed to ensure that, in relation to non-harmful, legitimate, lawful conduct, there is transparency. That's the transparency scheme piece of the legislation. In relation to malicious and harmful conduct, there are new offences, in particular the new offence of unlawful foreign interference, which will make it a criminal offence to act on behalf of a foreign principal so as to seek to affect the governmental and political processes of Australia in a covert manner—we can all think of a recent instance of that in this chamber, Mr President—and which will also, and this is Senator Cormann's piece of the package, prohibit foreign political donations and donations from foreign sources to try and influence the Australian political process or Australian political or electoral outcomes or activities.
Senator Bushby, we have, of course, heard the Labor Party bleating, for months and months, about foreign donations. Well, here we have the coalition government actually doing something about it—introducing a measure, which Senator Cormann will be introducing either today or tomorrow, that actually takes real and decisive action against foreign political donations. We hear the Labor Party and, even more, the Greens bleat about transparency. Here we've introduced a transparency scheme to ensure that the relationship between foreign principals and those who may engage on their behalf in Australia is a matter of transparent public record. And, of course, we have the shameful example of Senator Dastyari's conduct. (Time expired)
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Can the Attorney-General explain why these reforms are so important?
They are so important because, as I said a moment ago, we need to protect Australia's democracy, our democratic system and, in particular, our political processes and our electoral system from undisclosed foreign influence. Foreign influence, as I said a moment ago, can be completely benign, as in the case of people who undertake a commission, for example, or a retainer for a foreign interest. But people who do that should be subject to a similar regime as lobbyists. That's the value of transparency.
But, of course, there can be malign influences too. If, for example, a foreign government, through an agent of influence, seeks to suborn or seduce an Australian politician—an Australian senator, for example—and behaves in a covert manner to get that person to change their party's policy to a policy more congenial to the foreign government, then there's something wrong with that, and we ought to do something about it—and we have. (Time expired)
Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate of any risks to these historic reforms?
I think the risks, Senator Bushby, lie in those who engage in the very kind of conduct in this legislation. In particular, I'm speaking now of the foreign interference legislation and the new crime of unlawful foreign interference—the people who engage in that sort of conduct and those who protect them. We have the example of Senator Dastyari, who was given every opportunity last Thursday by this chamber to explain or deny the very serious allegations that had been made against him by credible journalists in the Fairfax press and the ABC and, in the course of a 20-minute speech, neither explained nor denied anything and, therefore, by his failure to deny the allegations, must be taken to have admitted them. The question arises: why does Mr Shorten continue to protect Senator Sam Dastyari?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Yesterday the Prime Minister finally announced long-overdue reforms to foreign donation laws, including bans on foreign donations, a move Labor has been advocating for years. Can the minister confirm that the coalition has voted on at least three occasions, including twice in 2009 and again in 2010, to defeat laws to ban foreign donations?
No, I can't confirm that, Senator Farrell. You may be right, but I would have to check the record. But the fact is, Senator Farrell, we're not interested. The Australian public aren't interested in what may have happened eight or nine years ago. They're interested in what's happening today. They're interested in the fact that one of your colleagues who sits behind you on the opposition benches, Senator Dastyari, has been suborned by a foreign influence. Given the opportunity to deny the allegations made by credible journalists, that he was suborned by Mr Huang Xiangmo, he declined to deny those allegations.
The fact is that Mr Shorten, in failing to take decisive action to tell Senator Dastyari that he is no longer welcome in the Labor caucus, has shown his weakness yet again. He has shown his weakness yet again. Why might that be, Senator Farrell? Might it be that Mr Shorten owes his position to Senator Dastyari, just as, if I may draw a comparison, Kristina Keneally owed her premiership to Mr Eddie Obeid? You would know more than me about the ecology of the Labor factions, I suppose, Senator Farrell, but you would know that they are all bound together by these unpleasant relationships of power, dependency and influence. That is why Mr Shorten is just too weak to take the action that the Australian people are demanding in relation to a man who has allowed himself, for whatever motives, to be used as a Chinese agent of influence, to overturn your own party's policy. He is still welcome in the Labor caucus. Senator Farrell, that is a disgrace.
Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.
Can the minister confirm that, at the same time the coalition was voting against laws to ban foreign donations, Mr Turnbull was accepting donations from the US based Fortress Investment Group, a 'vulture company' which foreclosed on victims of Hurricane Katrina?
No, I don't know that. I've never heard that said before. I will make some inquiries, but what I'm sure those inquiries will reveal is that all the donations received from corporate donors on my side of politics have been compliant with the disclosure obligations and other obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. My side of politics takes donations from businessmen, including Chinese businessmen, and we make sure that they are disclosed. But the fact is that we have arrived at the view that the influence of foreign money on Australian politics, mediated through political parties and other third-party actors, has become a serious problem, and we are taking action to address it.
Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Is the reason the Prime Minister has delayed banning foreign political donations, for over a year now, that he has received more than $1 million from Chinese donors?
(—) (): Senator Farrell, that is absolutely wrong. Far from having delayed, we have moved on this. The Prime Minister commissioned the policy work on this as long ago as August last year. In May of this year, he wrote to me and he wrote to Senator Cormann's predecessor as Special Minister of State—your good self, Mr President—to ask for the legislation to be prepared. By the way, it was legislation to deal with the problem of foreign money coming into and influencing not just Australian politics and Australian elections but also other vectors of influence, like the kind of influence we saw being exercised through your colleague Senator Sam Dastyari, to criminalise that sort of conduct. That is because the Australian political system and the Australian electoral system need to have integrity protected, not just from foreign money but from all of the other forms of foreign influence as well. This government has moved to do something about it. (Time expired)
My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. We have all heard about the horrifying abuses that came to light over the course of the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. Mr Turnbull, during question time on Monday, said that he would consider the recommendations handed down by the commission. I ask: is the government committed to implementing all of the recommendations directed at the Commonwealth by the royal commission? And what is the time line for the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations?
Thank you very much, Senator Siewert. That's a very important question. As you would know, the Prime Minister, Senator Scullion and I moved very, very swiftly to establish the royal commission into the child protection and youth detention systems in the Northern Territory. So swiftly, I might say, that we were criticised by some for being too swift in our reaction. The decision to establish that royal commission was made mutually by the Prime Minister, Senator Scullion and myself the very morning after those serious allegations and that very disturbing footage, in particular, had come to light.
As you know, Senator Siewert, the royal commission has now reported. The government is, as you say, considering its recommendations. Most of the recommendations are matters within the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory government, as you would expect with it being a Northern Territory facility. However, the Australian government is considering those findings that are directed to the Commonwealth. We are committed to ensuring a comprehensive and appropriate response to the substantial work of the commission. I might take the opportunity presented by your question to thank the royal commissioners, the Honourable Margaret White and Mr Mick Gooda, who did a wonderful job. There has been nothing but praise for the job that Margaret White and Mick Gooda did.
Senator Siewert, on a point of order?
I will make a point of order. I do appreciate the Attorney-General thanking the commissioners. The Prime Minister did that in his response. He hasn't gone anywhere near answering the questions I asked, which were: are they committed to implementing all the recommendations directed at the Commonwealth, and what's the time line?
Apart from that little segue thanking the royal commissioners, I do consider the minister to be relevant to the question as asked. I can't direct him to respond in the way you would like.
Senator Siewert, the report of the royal commission was only released on 17 November. It's now 6 December. It's less than three weeks ago. I'm sure you would understand that the government, as I've told you, is carefully considering the recommendations, but I hope you would think they are entitled to more than three weeks of consideration.
Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?
I will have another try at asking about the time line. Answering this question will directly relate to the time line. The royal commission recommended, in recommendation 7.3, that the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government immediately engage with Aboriginal community representatives to negotiate the broad terms of a partnership between communities and the government to foster better outcomes for children and young people and the implementation of the recommendations across the NT. Has the government started that consultation as part of its considerations of the royal commission's recommendations?
Senator Siewert, I know there has been a great deal of discussion between the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government, arising from the recommendations.
Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question.
The question was not about the Northern Territory government, it was about Aboriginal communities. Could the Attorney-General—
Senator Siewert, do you have a final supplementary question?
He didn't answer my question.
Senator Siewert, you know I can't direct the minister how to answer. The minister has resumed his seat and completed his answer. You have the opportunity for a final supplementary question.
Mr President, can you start the clock again then, please? I'll make it quick—
It would assist if you didn't provide me with advice from your chair. I will start the clock again.
Thank you, Mr President. There are ongoing abuses in other detention facilities around this country. They have been reported. Can I ask: what is the government going to do about the abuses in youth detention centres that are ongoing around Australia?
You are right, Senator Siewert. The findings of the royal commission, although focused on the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre—many of them at least—are of a general character from which other youth detention centres, operated by other territories, or other states, at least, can learn. Through the Council of Attorneys-General, we will be examining the recommendations and the way in which other jurisdictions are learning from or giving effect to the recommendations of the royal commission. But I stress again that these are all facilities that are operated by the states and the territories. They are not facilities over which the Commonwealth has direct control, but, nevertheless, the Commonwealth, as the lead government of the Federation, if I may put it that way, does, of course, have a deep interest in ensuring that all jurisdictions take these findings very seriously.
My question is to the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the Minister update the Senate on the National Accounts data released today and what this shows about the importance of the Turnbull government's plan for jobs and growth?
I thank Senator Hume for that question. What the release of the quarterly National Accounts data shows is that the Turnbull government's plan for jobs and growth is working—that it is working. Growth in the September quarter was 0.6 per cent, following an increase of 0.9 per cent in the June quarter, which means that growth over the year has accelerated from 1.9 per cent to 2.8 per cent, through the year, which is above the OECD average and puts Australia back up towards the top of the pack for major advanced economies around the world and, incidentally, is also broadly in line—in fact, slightly better than anticipated at budget time. New private business investment grew for the fourth consecutive quarter, rising two per cent to be 7½ per cent higher than a year ago. This is the strongest through-the-year growth since December 2012. Strength in new business investment was led by new engineering construction, which expanded to 6.3 per cent in the quarter and is 12.7 per cent higher through the year.
Employee salaries and wages increased 1.2 per cent in the quarter to be three per cent higher through the year which, of course, is also a positive outcome, and this positive outcome on wages and salaries has been driven by strong job creation, with more than 1,000 jobs a day created in the September quarter. Under the Turnbull government, of course, Australia is shaping up to have a record year for jobs. There are now 355,700 more Australians in work than a year ago; more than 80 per cent of these new jobs are full-time jobs. These results are further evidence that our economy is continuing to grow and strengthen under the coalition's plan for jobs and growth, and what it shows is the superior outcomes that can be achieved with a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-jobs policy agenda, as opposed to the anti-business, anti-jobs agenda from the opposition.
Senator Hume, a supplementary question.
May I also ask the minister to outline to the Senate how the government's pro-business, pro-investment, pro-growth and pro-jobs policies are supporting the opportunity for all Australians to get ahead?
The government's pro-business, pro-investment, pro-growth, pro-jobs plan is, of course, supporting the opportunity for all Australians to get ahead: that is what it's all about. At the core of our plan is our understanding that the way for Australians to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead is to ensure that the businesses of Australia have the best possible opportunity to be successful and to be profitable. The more successful and profitable businesses can be, the more Australians they can hire and the more they can pay them. Nine out of 10 Australians work for private sector business, so imagine my surprise when I read that Senator Wong attended a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition where they declared a war on business. Business is at the core of creating opportunity for all Australians to get ahead. Bill Shorten should be declaring a war on those dogs that keep eating David Feeney's homework. (Time expired)
Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister further outline what the impacts would be on investment, on jobs, on growth and on wages if the government's plan for jobs and growth is not implemented?
It's very simple. If we did not implement our plan and if Australia was subject to the alternative plan—the anti-business, anti-investment, anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-opportunity plan of the Leader of the Opposition—it would lead to less investment, lower growth, fewer jobs, higher unemployment and lower wages. It would have a disastrous impact on the opportunity for Australian families to get ahead. But don't take our word for it. We now have it in black and white. We have it from the Leader of the Opposition's mouth. He has declared war on business. He is engaged in war on business. That is very bad news for all Australians, because nine out of 10 Australians work in a private sector business. Mr Shorten has declared war on all those Australians who work in the private sector business across Australia. Mr Shorten, if he gets elected as the Australian Prime Minister, is going to come after you!
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. In September 2017, you asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the family law system, including the manner in which proceedings are conducted and the impact of family violence on parties. That report is due to be published in early 2019. Why then is the government introducing its Family Law Amendment (Parenting Management Hearings) Bill 2017, which will dramatically change the way disputes are managed, before the comprehensive review has been completed?
Thank you for the acknowledgement of this very important initiative. The government has decided to undertake the first comprehensive review of the family law system not just on the Family Law Act but on the entire family law system, including the way the system overlaps with the child protection systems of the states and territories. The Family Law Act came into operation in January 1976. We've asked Professor Helen Rhoades, a much respected expert in the field, to undertake that review. She will be supported by two other commissioners: former Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court John Faulks, and a very eminent family law practitioner, Mr Geoffey Sinclair.
The fact that we're undertaking such a comprehensive review must not arrest or abate more immediate needs for law reform. There are two the government identified and announced in the budget, one of which you have referred to–that is, parenting managing conferences. This is a pilot program, and I'm at pains to make that point. We are running two pilot programs. The first is to be commenced in the Parramatta registry in the middle of next year, and the second is to be commenced at a location yet to be announced at the end of next year. We are piloting a new mode for the resolution of disputes over children. It is paramount that the interests of children, when parents are separating, are treated with all the seriousness, care and concern that they deserve to be treated with. These are pilot programs. They don't detract from the more comprehensive review that you've referred to.
Senator Griff, a supplementary question.
The architect of the parent management hearings, Professor Patrick Parkinson, claims that these types of hearings are well suited to victims of domestic violence. However, both the Law Council of Australia and retired judges of the Family Court have raised serious concerns about the proposed bill. Can the government confirm whether these hearings will be used in family violence cases?
If family violence allegations are made in the course of parenting management hearings, then the matters will be referred back to the Family Court or the Federal Circuit Court. That's the immediate answer to your question, Senator Griff. But, in this area, of all areas, there are a variety of strongly held views. That is why we're rolling out these parenting management hearings as a pilot program, because we want to learn, from the way they are conducted, all that we can to inform us about future law reform. Although Professor Parkinson's name is associated with this kind of more consensual, mediation based dispute resolution, it would be quite wrong to think that Professor Parkinson alone is the author of this idea. I've discussed it with Professor Parkinson, but I've discussed it with many specialists in the field as well.
Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?
Will the government put on the record that parenting management hearings are not suitable for domestic violence cases?
I think I just did that, Senator Griff, when I told you that the way in which these pilot programs have been set up is that, if domestic or family violence allegations are made in the course of them, they are adjourned to the court. What the government is also doing, since you raise the acute issue of family violence, is, in the other bill that I'll be introducing today, the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill, creating new powers to protect against family violence. In particular, we will be introducing a new criminal offence where there is a breach of an order of a Family Court in relation to a family violence matter. Ordinarily courts enforce their orders by contempt proceedings and other forms of civil proceeding, but we are criminalising breaches of court orders in relation to family violence matters. That's something we're doing today. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Can the minister update the Senate on how the coalition government is supporting Australian medical research?
I thank Senator Smith for his question. Today the Minister for Health has announced a massive boost to medical research in Australia. The Turnbull government will invest $640 million to support Australia's world-leading health and medical researchers. Cancer research continues to be a major priority for this government, with $109 million allocated to projects for research into better cancer detection, treatments, care and cures, over $96 million for cardiovascular disease and $48 million for diabetes research. Over $53 million will be targeted through research projects that aim to help four million Australians who suffer from a form of mental health illness each year. Prioritising the health of Indigenous Australians is again a focus, with an additional $31 million.
The National Health and Medical Research Council is introducing a new initiative to reduce the gap in funding rates between male- and female-led investigators for project grants. Across Australia, 732 projects will receive funding for research into the areas mentioned and also other national health priority areas such as injury, dementia, obesity, asthma, arthritis and osteoporosis. Today's announcement, once again, proves the Turnbull government has a rock-solid commitment to the health and the better health of Australians. Compare that with those opposite and what they did at the last federal election—
What about the $7 co-payment?
I'll take the interjection from Senator Cameron. All you were able to offer at the last election was 'Mediscare' and 'Medifraud'. Do you remember ringing up, scaring the little old ladies? Your little mates went out there, Senator Cameron— (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
Government senators interjecting—
Order now on my right as well! We will proceed with question time when there is some silence. I'll wait until I can hear you, Senator Smith. Order on my left! You're wasting your own time.
I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate what the impact will be of this substantial new investment in medical research?
This funding supports work in laboratories, clinics and the community to find the next major medical breakthrough. Medical research investment is driving an increase in cancer survival rates. It is estimated that more than one million Australians are living with cancer or have survived a cancer diagnosis. A grant of $1.16 million will use data, for example, from cancer survivors and people without cancer to generate new knowledge to improve policy, clinical practise and health outcomes. This announcement will have flow-on effects to places like Macquarie Park in Bennelong where there are many companies that contribute to Australia's better-health outcomes. They have a very strong supporter in John Alexander, as opposed to those opposite who cut medical research when they were in government.
Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any threats to medical research in Australia?
It's those opposite. Let's look at Labor's abysmal record on medical research. During Labor's term, they repeatedly tried to cut funding for medical research. In 2011, Labor tried to rip $400 million from medical research but backflipped at the last moment after the researchers went out protesting in the streets. Labor also ripped $140 million out of medical research in their last budget through tricky accounting that withheld money from the NHMRC and then forced them to claim back what they had spent. This is no way to give certainty to the medical research sector. This is especially important in places like Bennelong where thousands of people, directly and indirectly, benefit from health related investments. Contrast this with your record of 'Mediscare' and 'Medifraud'. (Time expired)
My question without notice is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. The Universal Service Obligation is a contract with Telstra to ensure standard telephone services and payphones are accessible to all. It costs almost $300 million a year. The ANAO says it does not reflect value for money and there is little transparency as to whether it is meeting its policy objectives. It said that neither ACMA nor the department verify the accuracy of performance data provided by Telstra. The Productivity Commission said that the USO is 'anachronistic and costly' and should be phased out. The Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee said that the NBN will effectively become the new USO infrastructure, but that, by default, the USO supports the maintenance of Telstra's copper. Does the minister disagree with any of these three assessments?
I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for his question, his notice and his ongoing interest in the USO. The government does share the senator's concerns about the existing USO contract, which was put in place by the previous Labor government. This is why the coalition took immediate action on the recommendations of the 2015 Regional telecommunications review by tasking the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into the USO.
The government tabled the PC's report on 19 June. I said at the time that a major review of the USO was long-overdue to ensure that significant taxpayer investment is achieving value for money and providing appropriate customer protections. The PC report found that the USO is anachronistic and costly and should be replaced by a new framework to reflect changing policy and market and technological realities. The report also said that the arrangements put in place by the previous Labor government suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability, which makes the continuation of current arrangements difficult to justify.
The Audit Office was equally critical of the contract, saying that it 'became the means through which the government was able to deliver sufficient financial benefit to Telstra to ultimately secure its involvement in the rollout of the NBN'. However, despite the contract's flaws, the USO does continue to ensure that every Australian can access a standard telephone service, regardless of where they live. This is an important protection for regional Australians. The government is taking a belt-and-braces approach to protecting the needs of people in regional Australia. We've introduced legislation to put new stronger safeguards in place before proposing any amendments to the existing USO. We have legislation before the parliament that will establish a statutory infrastructure provider obligation on NBN. Additionally, we have the Regional Broadband Scheme, which will provide a long-term funding mechanism for NBN's loss-making services.
Senator Leyonhjelm, supplementary question.
Minister, if you exercised your option to wind back the USO funding, it could go towards improved mobile services for people in regional and rural Australia via the Black Spot Program, including a service for Hargraves, the location of my farm. Why is Hargraves still without a mobile service while money continues to be spent on the USO? Don't you want me to be able to give you a call on the way to my farm?
Like all colleagues in this place, I always eagerly anticipate and look forward to calls from Senator Leyonhjelm on his way to the farm or anywhere else for that matter. I'm very pleased to advise colleagues that under round 2 of our Mobile Black Spot Program, a new mobile tower will deliver coverage to Hargraves. This will benefit the Hargraves village and the surrounding community. Planning for the tower has already been completed. Telstra is currently obtaining relevant development approvals. A new tower is expected to be on air in the second quarter of 2018.
Additionally, another tower funded under round 1 of the program at Windeyer Road, Grattai, is expected to provide an uplift in coverage along the route between Hargraves and Mudgee. Again, Telstra is currently completing the design and approvals process, and expects the site to be on air in the second quarter of 2018. These are just a few of the many new towers under our Black Spot Program.
Senator Leyonhjelm, a final supplementary question.
In view of that amazing news, Mr President, I'll take the 'Hinch option' and waive my final supplementary.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. On last night's ABC 7.30 report we heard harrowing details of what household brand Tip Top are doing to the truck drivers who deliver their bread. One family of a driver who has since died of lung cancer told how one night after returning to work after having a lung removed he called in sick but was told he was under contract. So he drove until he had to give up work altogether. Sadly, he died last year. When did the minister first become aware of the conditions experienced by Tip Top drivers? And what action has the minister taken since?
I thank Senator Sterle for the question. I have recently also seen the media in relation to Tip Top. Can I just say the government takes the safety, as we all do, and I know you do, in particular, Senator Sterle, of all road users, including truck drivers, very seriously. That is why, as senators would be aware, we're investing $75 billion in infrastructure from 2017-18 to 2026-27, including a number of programs specifically targeting road safety.
Senator Sterle, I would say if there are any drivers who are concerned about the safety of their vehicles, they should immediately contact the road transport authorities—
Order, Senator Cash. Please, resume your seat. Senator Sterle, on a point of order?
A point of order, Mr President, on relevance. I specifically and clearly asked the minister when she first became aware—she said she has, but not when—of the conditions experienced by the Tip Top drivers, and, as importantly, what action she has since taken.
Thank you, Senator Sterle. As you know, I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. I can, however, remind the minister of the question, as you have, kindly, done as well. Senator Cash.
As I've stated, if there are any drivers who are concerned across Australia about the safety of their vehicle, they should immediately contact the road transport authority in their state. The government has a strong track record, in particular, Mr President, as you would know, when it comes to standing up for owner-drivers. We have also made it very, very clear that we're investing in road safety to ensure that drivers across Australia benefit from increased safety on the roads. And, in particular, Senator Sterle, in relation—
Order! Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron?
Mr President, this is on relevance. The minister was asked: when did she first become aware and what actions has she taken? That's the key issue here.
Senator Cameron, as you know, the minister is also allowed to address other elements of the question. There were other elements of the question. I take the opportunity to remind the minister of the entire question.
As I said, the government makes an ongoing investment in relation to road safety because we are aware that you need to ensure the safety of drivers on the road. But, Senator Sterle, also in relation to—
A point of order, once again on relevance, Mr President. I've clearly asked about the conditions at Tip Top. I did not mention the condition of the trucks, which are highly maintained anyway. I did not mention anything about the roads that these drivers are on. It is the conditions at Tip Top where they get screwed down—
Senator Sterle, I've reminded the minister of the question. The minister is entitled to answer the preamble to the question as well.
As I was saying, owner-drivers are covered by the Independent Contractors Act 2006 and, if they have concerns in relation to their contracts, they can also apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to have a review of the contract on the grounds that the contract is harsh or unfair. (Time expired)
Senator Sterle, a supplementary question?
My first supplementary. Since the abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in April 2016, there have been 301 police reported, truck related deaths on our roads. Can the minister confirm the government's own figures show an increase of 9.4 per cent in articulated-truck crash deaths over the past year?
Senator Sterle, as I have already stated, all of us here take the safety of all road users, including truck drivers, very, very seriously. While obviously acknowledging every death and serious injury on our roads is shocking, it is also important to note, and you would know this, that the vast majority of crashes involving heavy trucks are actually not the fault of the truck drivers themselves. The heavy vehicle industry is a focus of work for Safe Work Australia and health and safety regulators in all jurisdictions in order to reduce the high numbers of fatalities in that industry.
Mr President, a point of order: again, the minister is failing to answer the question. She has been asked to confirm these very alarming statistics.
Senator Collins, the minister is also allowed to address the facts in the question, and I think the minister is being directly relevant to the question as it was asked.
Again, the important point to note here in particular, Senator Sterle, is that you are trying to put a spin on statistics. The point I'm making is that every death—
You are a disgrace.
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Order! Senator Cameron, please cease interjecting while one of your colleagues is on their feet.
Mr President, a point of order: I take absolute disgust at that line of answering from the minister. She should be ashamed of herself saying that I'm trying to spin road deaths for a political gain.
That is not a point of order, Senator Sterle. There's an opportunity to debate answers after question time.
A point of order, Mr President, on direct relevance: we accept your ruling in relation to Senator Sterle, but he is expressing, I think, appropriate frustration. The minister—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
On direct relevance, as I started, Senator Macdonald.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Order on my right! Senator Wong has the call.
Thank you, Mr President. There was only one question: it was asking the minister to confirm this government's own figures about the increase in the number of articulated-truck crash deaths. I suggest to you, Mr President, that the answer today has not been directly relevant to that question.
Senator Wong, I heard the minister directly address, on a number of occasions, deaths in truck accidents. I consider that to be relevant to the question as asked. Senator Cash, there are four seconds remaining.
The point I was making, again, is: it is important to note that the vast majority of crashes involving heavy trucks are not the fault of the truck driver. (Time expired)
Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question?
The government's own review carried out by PWC showed that orders authorised by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal would have cut truck crash fatalities by 28 per cent. Why does the minister continue to ignore the evidence that her policies are demonstrably endangering the lives of our truck drivers and other road users?
Senator Sterle, I completely reject the premise of your question. Two independent reviews, by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Jaguar Consulting, concluded that the road safety remuneration system, including the tribunal, was not required, given that there is limited evidence of a link between safety and remuneration. In fact, the PricewaterhouseCoopers review found that the orders made by the tribunal would cost the economy in excess of $2 billion over 15 years.
My question is to the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Fifield. Can the minister update the Senate on the significant anniversary being celebrated today by the Australia Council for the Arts and the National Gallery of Australia?
I thank Senator Duniam for his interest and commitment to the arts. Fifty years ago, on 1 November 1967, Prime Minister Harold Holt announced his government's intention to establish a national funding body for the arts and a national art gallery for Australia. The establishment of these institutions marked an important step in the development of arts policy in Australia. In announcing this pivotal step in Australia's arts policy, Prime Minister Holt said he wished to encourage those 'who have for so long given their time and energy to advancing our own distinctive cultural activities'. He also expressed an aspiration for the Australia Council for the Arts and the National Gallery to support Australian talent to 'rise to new heights and give our people a growing pleasure and satisfaction'.
The idea for a national gallery was proposed two years earlier, in 1965, by Prime Minister Menzies, when he announced the establishment of a committee of inquiry into a proposed national gallery of art. The inquiry report of the following year recommended the establishment of the Australian National Gallery as the statutory authority. The gallery's focus would be on Australian art, modern international art and works of art representing the cultural achievement of Australia's neighbours in South and East Asia and the Pacific Islands. The inquiry report also recommended the construction of a new building to house the gallery's collection, and construction on that building commenced in the seventies. The speech by Prime Minister Holt 50 years ago highlighted the Commonwealth's commitment to supporting art created by, and exhibited and performed for, Australians. It demonstrated a belief in the power of the arts to shape our uniquely Australian cultural identity. Today we honour his foresight and hard work, and acknowledge his tremendous legacy.
Senator Duniam, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for that answer. Can the minister outline how the Turnbull government is honouring the enduring legacy of former Prime Minister Holt in relation to the arts?
The Turnbull government, along with its predecessors, invests in a total of eight flagship national cultural institutions. In addition to the National Gallery, these institutions are the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the Museum of Australian Democracy, the National Film and Sound Archive, the Australian National Maritime Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Bundanon Trust. In addition to the Australia Council, the arts portfolio now includes Screen Australia, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, and seven elite national performing arts training organisations. These organisations are the Australian Ballet School, the Australian National Academy of Music, the National Institute of Dramatic Art, the National Institute of Circus Arts, NAISDA Dance College, the Flying Fruit Fly Circus and the Australian Youth Orchestra. The government also supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art centres and language centres across the country—in total, investing $698 million in the arts in 2017-18.
Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Finally, can the minister outline how the other cultural institutions in the arts portfolio are delivering on the vision outlined by Prime Minister Holt those 50 years ago?
As many of the collecting institutions are quite rightly very well known, I'd like to highlight a few possibly lesser known examples that deliver on the vision of 50 years ago. In his speech in 1967, Prime Minister Holt outlined the focus of the National Gallery's collection as including the cultural achievements of Australia's neighbours in southern and eastern Asia and the Pacific islands. The National Library of Australia has created a world-class research collection on contemporary Indonesia and maintains an office in Jakarta. The cultural institutions have developed close links with neighbouring countries and are increasingly collaborating on significant exhibitions and providing expert advice on conservation and curation of national collections. It is important on an occasion such as this to acknowledge the contribution of both sides of politics to the arts, but, at this time, we pause to reflect on the legacy of former Prime Minister Holt.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to the minister who, when asked in question time last week about media reports that Mr Turnbull dined with a Chinese political donor and wealthy businessman, Mr Liu, four days after one of Mr Liu's companies donated $40,000 to the Queensland Liberal National Party, said, 'I am not familiar with the details of those reports.' Given that the minister has had a week to familiarise himself, I ask the minister: who invited Mr Liu, and on what basis was the invitation to Mr Liu issued?
I don't know, Senator.
Senator Kitching, a supplementary question.
On how many occasions has the Prime Minister met or dined with foreign donors?
I don't know, Senator.
Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.
Perhaps—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
Perhaps, Mr President, through you, you could ask the—
Order on my left! I can't hear you at the moment, Senator Kitching, due to your colleagues.
Perhaps through you, Mr President, Senator Brandis might take some of these questions on notice, given he seems very ill informed.
Senator Kitching, as you know, I cannot direct the minister how to answer a question. The minister has been relevant to your question. I will call you for your final supplementary question.
Even former Abbott government defence minister David Johnston says, 'I think foreign donations are a serious problem and potentially undermining of our natural interests.' Why then is the Prime Minister continuing to dine with wealthy foreign businessmen in order to procure donations?
The fact is that the sentiment that former Senator Johnston has expressed, or at least that you have attributed to him, is the same view that I have expressed, earlier in question time, and the same view the Prime Minister himself holds, which is why the government has moved to ban foreign donations and ban the introduction of foreign money into the Australian political process, not just through donations to political parties but through donations to third-party political activists as well, something that I thought the Labor Party was meant to welcome, but apparently—it seems from your question, Senator Kitching—that is not so. The fact is that hitherto it has not been against the law of Australia to receive donations from foreigners, as long as those donations have been disclosed. As I have said before, I am very confident that all donations received by the Liberal Party or the National Party have been disclosed.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister update the Senate on Monday's decision by the national training regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, in relation to TAFE SA and what this decision means for South Australian VET students and employers looking for skilled workers?
I thank Senator Fawcett for his question and his interest in training in South Australia, and his concern, in particular, for students afflicted by the crisis that has befallen TAFE in South Australia. This week we have been made aware of the decision by the national training regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, to suspend TAFE SA's registration in relation to 14 courses that TAFE SA was administering. This is as a result of an audit, a random audit, that was undertaken into 16 courses run by TAFE SA. So 14 out of the 16 courses that had been audited in TAFE SA have been given the thumbs-down by the national regulator as a result of serious, serious mismanagement on the part of TAFE SA and the South Australian government. Indeed, TAFE SA was found not to be compliant with numerous clauses of the standards for registered training organisations in Australia. Seven of the suspended courses are on the national and state priority lists, demonstrating they are indeed important courses, and the impact is estimated to touch upon at least 800 students across plumbing, commercial cookery, meat processing, hairdressing and automotive refinishing. The problem, though, is not limited there. Ms Susan Close, the minister for education in South Australia, has conceded that she and the government have no idea of the scale of the problem that has been created—that, given 14 out of 16 courses audited have been found to have fundamental problems, Ms Close has admitted, she has no idea how many more courses might be affected, how many more students may be impacted, or how many people who have qualifications that they may not have received adequate training for may well be out there. This is a most serious problem, a most serious embarrassment, for the South Australian government and it's one that Minister Close ought to be held to account for.
Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate of the Commonwealth's investment in vocational education and training, and how this compares to the South Australian government's record?
Over the last five years, the federal government has provided some $771 million to the South Australian government to support vocational education and training. In that time, however, senators would be shocked to know that the South Australian government has decreased its investment in vocational education and training from what was $516 million in 2012 to $425 million in 2016. We see there the clear trajectory of a state government who, of course—we in this chamber know—can't keep the lights on. Those who have followed the welfare of the most vulnerable in South Australia would know they can't manage to keep vulnerable children safe, or disabled South Australians safe. They certainly can't manage to grow the economy or create jobs. And now it is clear they cannot even manage to run a training system in South Australia, they have cut their funding, they've chopped and changed their policies, and they've now left hundreds or thousands of students stranded with qualifications for which they received inadequate training.
Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of the concerns of other federal regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, about TAFE SA?
This is a matter, I know, that Senator Fawcett has followed particularly closely because, Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, has been well aware that not just the training regulator but also CASA, the civil aviation safety administration authority, has undertaken its own audit identifying that aircraft engineering and training undertaken by TAFE SA has failed to live up to the adequate standards. So we have here clear signals that areas of critical safety have been failed, in terms of the training provided to students in South Australia.
I understand the Senate today is likely to consider establishing an inquiry into this. This is crucial, because the South Australian parliament won't sit again until the election in the middle of March next year. So the Senate has a chance to do what Jay Weatherill will not do—and that is, hold Susan Close and her department to account for their manifest failures.
Mr President, while I'm in Adelaide in South Australia, I'd like to tell the Senate that two wickets have been claimed in the Ashes whilst we've been here; four to go!
Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Brandis.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I table an updated ministry list for the Turnbull ministry, reflecting the joyous news of the re-swearing of the Hon. Barnaby Joyce as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
So noted.
I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to Senator Sinodinos.
Leave granted.
This morning, during the debate on the reference of Senator Gallagher to the High Court, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate made a number of remarks about our colleague Senator Arthur Sinodinos. I should say, particularly in view of Senator Sinodinos's health and the fact that he is on leave from the Senate to deal with the health issue that has afflicted him, that I appreciate the fact that those comments were made by the Leader of the Opposition in a very temperate manner. Nevertheless, they were made. In view of those comments, I wish to advise the Senate that Senator Sinodinos has received advice from the relevant minister in the Greek government, the Minister of Interior, that he is not and has never been a citizen of Greece. I table that letter, which is written in the Greek language, along with a translation of that letter provided by the Greek embassy. These documents confirm that Senator Sinodinos is not and has never been a citizen of Greece.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
Given Senator Sinodinos's personal circumstances, I regret that I feel that it is incumbent upon us to respond. But, given that the document has been tabled and some assertions made, I do want to place upon the record the view of the Labor Party, which, as I again say, both in light of our view about partisan referrals and in light of his medical circumstances, we leave for the government to reflect upon.
The documents tabled by the Attorney deal with whether or not Senator Sinodinos has registered his Greek citizenship. The allegation is not that he registered his citizenship but that he acquired it. The consistent advice that the opposition has had and has given its persons nominating for parliament is that Greek citizenship by descent is automatic at birth, as is made clear in article 1 of the Greek Nationality Code. Under article 18 of that code, a written declaration must be submitted to the nearest Greek consulate. Those are the relevant documents. We don't believe the documents that have been tabled reflect that. Certainly, the advice to Labor candidates in a similar position over the years has consistently been that such a written declaration must be provided.
I refer to questions asked by Senator McAllister yesterday in question time in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I have sought advice from the minister and I can advise as follows: for the purposes of administrative simplicity, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection assesses people from comparable English-speaking nations as meeting the English requirement. Those countries include the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. I am also advised that the countries mentioned are the same countries that were included for competent English assessments for migration purposes during Labor's time in government.
I refer to a question asked of me yesterday by Senator Hinch in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Health. I would like to add to the response that I provided to Senator Hinch during question time yesterday regarding transvaginal mesh. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, TGA, has been monitoring this situation closely since 2008 and did reviews in 2010 and 2013. The most recent review was completed on 28 November 2017. The TGA has in place an established adverse events reporting system, and the TGA has continued to encourage doctors and patients to report adverse events involving gynaecological mesh. It is mandatory for manufacturers to report adverse findings to the TGA.
At the time of the calling of the Senate inquiry, the TGA had received about 250 adverse event reports from the use of gynaecological meshes in the context of about 150,000 devices having been implanted in Australia. The Senate inquiry did play a role in stimulating additional reports from affected women. However, the recent decision of the TGA was not directly in response to the Senate inquiry, which is still underway and has not yet made any recommendations. Rather, a decision was made to remove from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods transvaginal mesh products, whose sole use is the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse via transvaginal implantation and single-incision mini slings for stress urinary incontinence. This decision follows a review by the TGA of the latest published international studies and an examination of the clinical evidence for each product included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and supplied in Australia.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) and the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) to questions without notice asked by Senators Carr, Farrell and Sterle today relating to proposed laws concerning foreign donations and influence and to a 7.30 report concerning drivers for Tip Top.
The politics of this government is no longer about the battle of ideas or adherence to principle. We have heard very pejorative words used today—and we've heard all week—about the attacks on individuals. This is a government that has descended to assaults upon the character of individuals.
It was Malcolm Turnbull who came into office purporting to be a man of integrity. He was a man who said he would treat the public with intelligence. He said they would not be treated as idiots. What we have seen is that this government is now conducting itself on the basis of personal smears. We know that they've cast aside all assertions to be acting on terms of principle. We no longer have a conversation in this country about the values that should shape this country. We no longer have a conversation about the sort of country we want Australia to be. It is a conversation now that the Prime Minister—in fact, he discourages his front bench—is not interested in engaging in.
We see a proposition advanced with real venom on a premise that simply is this: that Bill Shorten and leading members of the Labor caucus are this government's and this Prime Minister's social and intellectual inferiors. This is what you get when you are falling behind in 24 news polls. It's a desperate measure seized upon by desperate men and women in desperate times. This is a government that is even willing to suggest that Labor MPs and Labor senators are traitors. No evidence is ever suggested to ascertain the truth of that matter, other than to imply that the security agents of this country support such a contention. What a preposterous idea: that the Attorney-General will engage the security agencies of this country in the domestic politics of the Commonwealth.
I've never done so.
Yes, you have. You've done it repeatedly in this chamber and in the press on a regular basis, for which you should be condemned. The hypocrisy on this question is absolutely breathtaking. You don't care who you throw under the bus—even your former trade minister. No wonder he comes out and makes his contempt perfectly clear for the politics that you're now engaging in. Why is it that he says it's quite clear that you're engaging in a shameless and unethical political stunt?
Huang Xiangmo of the Yuhu Group has been a very generous donor to the Liberal Party—over $1 million. Of course, that's on the public record. When they accepted that money it wasn't an act of treason. However, when the Labor Party is engaged with this man, there is a completely different and double standard. When the leader of this government appears in public with these individuals, it's regarded as perfectly legitimate, because it's the Labor Party that's unworthy and Labor politicians that are somehow illegitimate.
This government, because of its desperation, has now in a shocking attempt been reduced to smearing the reputation of Bill Shorten, because he has been so successful. They have so completely underestimated the willingness of the Australian people to engage in a proper conversation about the future direction of this country. You don't care about the consequence: the consequence to our democratic policies; the consequence to our institutions, our universities; and the consequence to our relationship with our No. 1 trading partner. You don't care about the consequence of the misuse of intelligence or the partisan use of the police forces of this country. You'll do anything you can to trash the reputations of individuals and this country's democratic processes. It's a process for which you should hang your head in shame, because it will not work. When Andrew Robb calls you out, you know just how desperate you've become and how shockingly puerile this government is— (Time expired)
I thought the questions were about foreign donations and counterespionage but the outrage, or the feigned outrage, we have just seen from Senator Carr points to the fact that in actual fact their leader is the person who is under significant pressure at the moment for the simple reason that the contention put forward by Senator Carr fails the pub test. For the average person in the street who looks at the conduct of people in this house—whether they be crossbench, government or indeed opposition members who have been held to account by the Labor Party over section 44, where there has been no ill will and no suggestion of conduct that is not loyal to Australia—there has been all kinds of outrage from those opposite. Yet, if we go to the wording of section 44 of the Constitution, it says that disqualification applies to any person who:
… is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power.
We have seen Mr Shorten protect and not admonish or hold to account, in a similar standard, somebody who has clearly conducted himself in a manner that members here—even members opposite—have recognised is not appropriate. But the outrage that is thrown at people who failed section 44 under citizenship is not thrown at those who the pub test would say have actually breached that in terms of 'obedience' or 'allegiance' to a foreign power. Because it's not about donations to a political party; the issue here was personal donations and conduct directly related to things that breached the Labor Party's own policy. That is the issue at hand here. The policy area that Senator Carr referred to and the questions that were asked went to the proposed legislation around political donations, tackling foreign interference and espionage. They are the serious issues of government that the Turnbull government is getting on with in the national interest.
The government has put forward legislation to address the issue of foreign donations that will actually ban foreign donations, unlike the proposal that was introduced by Mr Shorten in February of this year which purports to ban foreign donations but actually has significant loopholes. The definitions of foreign property don't take into account the actual owner of the asset, just where the asset is held. So the effect of that is that there are many ways that legislation, or that ban, could be circumvented by using money that is already in an Australian bank account. So it goes to the heart of the fact that this is a government that actually sees a problem and provides a considered solution that will have not just the headline of a fix but also a policy that will have the effect of banning foreign donations and that influence.
More broadly, the government is concerned, as are the Australian people, about foreign interference and espionage. It's not just occurring here in Australia. On a recent delegation to the European Union, I heard firsthand evidence from countries who are concerned about a range of foreign interference in their news cycles and their political systems right through to what we hear in America about the use of Facebook ads to push false news and create dissent and division in communities. In Australia we have concerns about pressure on people, who are of a different ethnic origin living in Australia, to support the views of a foreign government. We see universities under pressure about what they will or won't teach. We see actions taken at conferences and symposiums in Australia where, essentially, speakers are shut down by the actions of foreign delegates.
There are a range of ways that we see foreign interference. These reforms will mean that we are going to address the threat of political interference by foreign intelligence services or, indeed, by other governments and their representatives, whether they be formal or through business or expatriate links. It is in the national interest that the government is doing this, and it is a shame that, on such an important topic, those taking note from the other side should resort to attacking the person and the character, in this case, of the Attorney-General and of the Prime Minister, as opposed to dealing with the substantive issue, which is an issue that goes directly to our national interest.
I rise to take note of the answers to questions that I put to Minister Cash today. I cannot believe what I heard today. What a disgraceful episode that was. I asked the minister and the government when they became aware of some shocking employment conditions at Tip Top, where one driver died in the car park from a heart attack. His family were interviewed last night on 7.30 and they said that they believed their husband and father had been driven to an early grave. He had worked six months without a day off—working seven days a week and sometimes 17 hours a day. The lack of empathy I got from the minister could not have been more embarrassing or less caring. All she wanted to waffle on about was some funding for some roads—and, if someone has a problem with a truck, get on the internet or something.
Tip Top is a name that has been around forever, but I for one will never purchase another Tip Top product—and I reckon Australia should get in behind me. Tip Top are a subsidiary of Associated British Foods, which just weeks ago reported a profit of over A$27 billion. These so-and-sos at Tip Top are squeezing the supply chain down to the point where people are dying. One poor man who had lung cancer was so ill that he couldn't go to work. When he rang up, do you know what the response was from Tip Top—that brand on the shelves at Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and the like? Their answer was: 'We don't care how crook you are. You have a contract; get in here.' He couldn't afford to put a driver on. That is the way that he was treated by this multibillion-dollar raider from Britain. What a disgraceful company!
The minister, in her response to my question, accused me—it's on the record—of trying to spin a political point when I spoke about the 301 deaths on our roads involving articulated vehicles. I get really, really wild about this as an ex-long distance truck driver. I carved my living on the roads, the highways and byways from Perth to Darwin, starting off as a 15-year-old in the removal industry and then running my own trains up there on a fortnightly basis. I know the pain that truckies go through. I know the lack of quality lifestyle that they have. I worked for a company which wasn't all that fantastic in paying, sometimes—but, fortunately, we were a collective. When we weren't paid right, we had the ability—in those good old days—to withdraw our labour. We could park our $200,000 rigs out the front of the yard and say, 'We're not moving, because we aren't being paid a rate that can pay off our fuel bills, fix our trucks, pay off our trucks, feed our families and pay off our house payments.' These poor devils working for Tip Top have had rate reductions.
I want to mention the two drivers from Tip Top who came here from Sydney, because they are brave men. Mark Goldfinch and Paul Clapson came here yesterday to tell their story to Australian legislators. Not one coalition government member—Liberal, National, LNP—would meet with them. Why not? Then the minister gets up in question time—like some complete; I won't say that word because I will have to withdraw it, and I can't put my tongue around a nice enough word—and tries to push away these deaths that have been experienced at one bread company, because the poor devils have had $1,000 a week taken off their remuneration, and treats my question and my concern about deaths on our roads as a political stunt. I am absolutely concerned about the deaths happening on our roads.
I'm the son of a long-distance truck driver. I'm the father of a long-distance truck driver. I absolutely have fears every night: are my mates and my son safe out there on the highway and are other road users safe out on the highway? Every truck in this country should have a driver that is rested safely. He or she should be paid a rate that will cover their fixed costs and their variable costs, and give them a working wage—not wage theft from so-and-sos, like these mongrels here from Britain Tip Top. And I'm not making this up. So I challenge anyone from Tip Top, if you're listening, to write me a letter and tell me I'm wrong; tell me that Mark Goldfinch, Paul Clapson and all their mates—about eight of them—haven't had wage theft. What a disgusting company!
The emotional plea from Senator Sterle was, indeed, stirring. I don't doubt for a moment his sincerity. I do doubt, however, his accuracy. It was, indeed, those opposite that tried to destroy the trucking industry. The government, in fact, with the support of the crossbench, were the ones that took action to urgently abolish the RSRT and to put an end to its payments order, which directly threatened the livelihoods of tens of thousands of owner truck drivers and their family operators. That payments order caused crippling financial hardship and emotional distress to thousands of owner-drivers. It was very bad for small business; it was very bad for owner truck drivers; it was bad for families; and it was bad for the economy.
The RSRT was implemented in 2012 by none other than Bill Shorten. It was done to appease the Transport Workers Union in order to silence their public opposition to the Julia Gillard carbon tax. The payments order was designed purely to push owner-drivers out of business and into the employ of the large transport companies, making them a workforce that, of course, would be much easier to unionise. This government was not going to stand by and watch the livelihoods of those tens of thousands of people be destroyed. So, in 2016, with the support of the majority of the crossbench of the Senate, this government abolished the RSRT and saved the livelihoods of those thousands of small businesses—those thousands of owner-operator truck drivers. Mr Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, has made it clear that Labor supports the re-establishment of the RSRT and of the pay order. Labor continues to support the destruction of the tens of thousands of small businesses throughout Australia. It is entirely impossible not to feel enormous empathy for the men and women whose lives have been turned upside down by the unnecessary ordeal caused by the tribunal's unfair payments order.
Owner-drivers, as we all know, are the lifeblood of the economy. We simply couldn't survive without them. This government will never do anything which threatens their viability with significant implications across the country. By abolishing that tribunal, the government has been able to provide $4 million per year to vital road projects, including contributions to the Heavy Vehicle Safety Initiative package that delivers chain-of-responsibility education and improves heavy vehicle monitoring. It has funded research into heavy vehicle driver fatigue to inform the development of future fatigue arrangements. It has also provided safer freight networks in areas identified as higher risk. It has contributed to the Black Spots Program and to the national Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program and the Bridges Renewal Program to deliver the key infrastructure to improve heavy vehicle safety outcomes. It has also gone to developing a master industry code of practice. It has gone to developing safety, education and awareness campaigns. It has also provided pilots for the new livestock transfer infrastructure.
While I feel for Senator Sterle and I can hear the emotion in his voice, I suggest to you, Madam Deputy President, that they are, in fact, crocodile tears—that there is an extent of theatre and of performance art to Senator Sterle's allegations today.
I've surprised myself today because I do tend to agree, to some extent, with Senator Carr. He was right when he said that this is a government that was elected because of its principles. Indeed, the announcements made yesterday by the Attorney-General, by the Prime Minister and also by the Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann, suggest that we are acting on those principles.
It's not just rhetoric. It's not just empty words. We are acting on those principles. The behaviour of those opposite, while not the cause of it, certainly demands it; it certainly inspires it. This is a government of principle. This is a government that's acting in the national interest. It's a government that's doing what Australians expect of it. It's a government that is getting on with the job of looking after the interests of not just some, not just a select few, but all Australians.
I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Brandis and Senator Cash and, in doing so, acknowledge what a lacklustre and insincere response we heard from Senator Brandis to questions regarding the introduction of foreign donations legislation. We know how insincere and lacklustre it was because Senator Brandis has been silent on the matter of foreign donations legislation for months now, if not years.
I think it was back in June when, on Sky News, Senator Brandis talked about how the government would introduce in the spring sittings legislation to ban foreign donations. Yet here we are, the day before parliament rises for the year, and Senator Brandis is flagging that, finally, the government wants to introduce foreign donations legislation. We know why this is. It is a political stunt by this government to show that it is finally doing something about foreign donations to political parties, unlike the Labor Party, which has for years been trying to legislate in this manner, both in government and in opposition.
There is a bill on the table right now that Mr Shorten tabled to ban foreign donations to political parties. It's been on the table for over a year, and yet the coalition has deliberately ignored this bill and tried to obfuscate and prevent any kind of debate being brought on simply because it is not interested in banning foreign donations. It is continuing to take foreign donations into its political coffers for the various elections that it has to fight. I have a very good question for Senator Brandis: is the Liberal Party taking foreign donations for the current Bennelong by-election?
What is really clear here is the government's insincerity in dealing with this issue. As Senator Farrell asked Senator Brandis, why did the coalition in 2010 vote against laws to ban foreign donations? Why has the coalition, time and time again, voted against laws—laws that are in place in the United States, in the UK and in Canada, and that Labor has been trying to legislate for in this place for years—to ban foreign donations? This government is not interested in doing that because it is quite comfortable continuing to take such donations.
If Senator Brandis were serious about this legislation, then the parliament would have sat last week so that the debate could have continued and so that we could have passed this legislation this year. But he is not serious about it at all. He has been dragged kicking and screaming to deal with it because of the politics that has come to light surrounding the issues at play—issues that, of course, the Liberal Party know very well they are tainted with themselves.
If we look back through the history of donations legislation in this parliament, it was under the Hawke government all those years ago that we set a disclosure threshold for political donations of $1,500. What did Prime Minister John Howard do the moment he came in? He lifted that threshold to $10,000—a $10,000 threshold for disclosure of donations. Not only did Labor's legislation that Mr Shorten introduced a year ago look at the issue of banning foreign donations; it also looked at the issue of thresholds. It also looked at the issue of banning anonymous donations to political parties. It also looked at the issue of donation splitting. It looked at a range of disclosure issues to ensure that we build in an automatic, instinctive process to ensure we are accountable, including donation disclosure in as close to real time as possible. All of that has been on the table in this parliament for over a year. The Labor Party have wanted to ban foreign donations for over a year. This government has not.
You kept taking them!
No. The Labor Party has not taken foreign donations since July this year. Despite the government not wanting to debate it, we banned them anyway. (Time expired)
The motion to take note of answers moved by Senator Carr made reference to Senator Sterle's question. I take a point of difference with Senator Hume when she suggests that Senator Sterle was less than serious or was putting a bit of theatre into it. I have no doubt that Senator Sterle feels very passionately and strongly on behalf of truck drivers. I have no doubt that his concern for their welfare is very genuine. I do not agree that increased rates of pay or somehow resurrecting the RSRT will make the circumstance which he described today any better, notwithstanding the fact that I understand how difficult it is that a man who was suffering from cancer had to fulfil his contractual obligations.
I would like to make this point, and it is a serious one for this chamber: the minister may have been giving an answer that Senator Sterle didn't appreciate, but, during her answer, multiple points of order were taken, although there were some directly relevant responses. Senator Sterle took one himself, and I think that was reasonably genuine. Senator Cameron took a point of order as well. I think Senator Sterle took another one, and there could have been Senator Wong also. I'm not sure whether she took one. But there were three, four or maybe even five points of order, which meant the minister wasn't even able to get out a response that might have illuminated the matter. I think those were spurious points of order. They didn't assist in our ability to get the answers that Senator Sterle was, I think, quite genuinely seeking.
There was a repeal of the RSRT last year by the government. That was due to a change of mind by the Nick Xenophon Team. I recall that Senator Xenophon, when it was introduced, invoked that same sort of emotive response, about someone who was tragically killed by an out-of-control truck whilst they were changing a tyre on the side of the road. Anyway, after examining the merits of it and recognising that there really is no correlation between road safety and rates of pay when it comes to truck drivers, the Senate, in its wisdom, changed the legislation. I supported that, because, notwithstanding the emotions and the personal commitment that Senator Sterle and others have in this space, I don't think it's entirely relevant to the Tip Top contractual obligations that were raised today.
I guess the point is that, if we want to get answers to questions, and there is a requirement for direct relevance in this space, then it is incumbent upon all of us to not raise multiple points of order seeking to score political points, because then the person answering the questions might not be tempted to score political points themselves and might actually come within cooee of responding to the question.
I also make the point that yesterday, in taking note of answers, there was some discussion about national security issues, and this was something that Senator Carr also moved a motion about, in response to Senator Brandis's concerns. The concerns about national security are not confected. They're absolutely serious. There is a quite genuine need for reform in this place. It's on both major parties, who have taken donations from individuals whom ASIO have warned them about. We have the circumstance with Senator Dastyari, who has warned an individual that they may be under surveillance and they should go outside to discuss it, free of the authorities' listening devices. I find that extraordinary, and I find it extraordinary that it's defended on that side of the chamber, because I know that even Senator Dastyari's close friends can't defend it. They were giving him counsel and advice, which is completely contrary to what Mr Shorten, Senator Carr and others are saying in this place.
If we're serious about trying to restore some faith and confidence in the body politic, if you're serious about wanting to ensure that people have at least an understanding that we're trying to act in the national interest here, you cannot defend the indefensible. You've got to put aside the tribal message and you've got to call it out when it's wrong. Senator Dastyari is completely wrong in this space, and I think anyone that defends him here is completely wrong. The Australian public know it. As Graham Richardson, a former Senator, says, 'The mob will work you out,' and the mob have worked this out pretty quick. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a statement of no more than three minutes.
Leave is granted for three minutes.
Senator Bernardi took the crossbench spot—
An honourable senator interjecting—
It's normally the crossbench spot—when he didn't have a question today. I asked a question about a very important matter, which was the royal commission inquiry into the child protection and youth detention systems of the Northern Territory, known as the Don Dale inquiry, which the government unfortunately didn't answer. While Senator Brandis repeated some of the comments that the Prime Minister had made in the other place on Monday, which I had actually read, it did not help inform the chamber as to what I asked, which was: is the government going to implement all of the recommendations from the royal commission? There are at least 17 that are specifically targeted at the Commonwealth, and there are others that we expect the Commonwealth to work on with the Northern Territory. I would have thought that the Commonwealth could have got a fairly good idea about those by now, given that it's been a number of weeks since the royal commission recommendations were handed down. The government also squibbed on telling us a time line for when we can expect their response and what it's going to look like. There are a number of really important issues here.
The second question I asked was specifically about recommendation 7.3, which was about immediate engagement with Aboriginal community representatives to negotiate the broad terms of a partnership between the communities and the government to boost better outcomes for children and young people. The reason I asked about this is that it's absolutely critical. It's at the foundation of most of the recommendations—certainly the recommendations from the Family Matters report, which I talked about in this place just last night, and also the Change the Record report, which is: anything to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has to be done in partnership and where the community is taking the lead on these important issues. That's why I asked about that. And, again, the government did not answer that question. They squibbed it again when it came to their answer to my final supplementary, which was: what's happening in the rest of Australia? We went to the same old 'states and territories' and that old backwards and forwards between states and territories and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth clearly has a role of leadership here and, as articulated in these recommendations, a lot of responsibility. There are a number of recommendations particularly for the Commonwealth to take up, and that needs to happen around Australia, not just in the Northern Territory.
Mr President, for the sake of accuracy: I didn't take a crossbench spot. As a crossbencher, I sought to contribute to a debate that was in order.
Senator Bernardi, there are other opportunities in the chamber to deal with this.
I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 21 March 2018 proposing the disallowance of the ASIC Credit (Flexible Credit Cost Arrangements) Instrument 2017.
I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today proposing a reference to the Senate Economics References Committee concerning the Australian casino industry.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That the following bills be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for related purposes. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, and for related purposes. Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to broadcasting, and for other purposes. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for other purposes. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to communications, and for other purposes. Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to communications, and for other purposes. Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the Copyright Act 1968, and for related purposes. Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the criminal law and law enforcement, and for related purposes. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015, and for other purposes. Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to family law, and for related purposes. Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1975, and for related purposes. Family Law Amendment (Parenting Management Hearing) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and for related purposes. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017;
A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation, and for other purposes. National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017;
Question agreed to.
I present the bills and 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 table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and 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—
ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 2017
It is my pleasure to introduce Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2017 (Bill) to the chamber.
The Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to recognising traditional Aboriginal ownership of land and to finalising land claims in the Northern Territory which have remained unresolved for decades.
It delivers on the Government's election commitment to resolve outstanding Aboriginal land claims in the Northern Territory and to work with Indigenous land owners to ensure their land rights deliver the economic opportunities that should come from owning your own land.
This Bill also gives practical effect to our commitment to working in partnership with Indigenous Australians.
The Government is committed to the recognition of Indigenous land through statutory land rights and native title and we are working with traditional owners and land councils to make sure these are resolved as soon as possible.
The Bill adds areas subject to four traditional land claims in the Kakadu region of the Northern Territory to Schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Land Rights Act) so that the land can be granted as Aboriginal land. It also provides for the leaseback of that land to the Director of National Parks (Director).
The Bill also adds land that was subject to a successful native title application in the Roper River region of the Northern Territory to Schedule 1 of the Land Rights Act so that the land can be granted as Aboriginal land. Scheduling of the land is consistent with the terms of the Township of Urapunga Indigenous Land Use Agreement executed by the native title parties and the Northern Territory Government.
The four land claim areas in the Kakadu region comprise approximately 50 per cent of Kakadu National Park (Park).
Title to the majority of that land is held by the Director, a Commonwealth statutory office holder. Smaller land parcels subject to the land claims are Crown land held by the Northern Territory and Commonwealth.
The balance of the land in the Park is already Aboriginal land and leased to the Director by the Aboriginal Land Trusts which hold title.
The land claims were lodged between 1984 and 1997. While they remain unresolved there are statutory limitations on dealing with the land. This has constrained potential developments in one of Australia's iconic tourism destinations and added a layer of complexity to the joint management arrangements in place between traditional Aboriginal owners and the Director.
The parties to the land claims have agreed to settle on the basis of the land being scheduled for grant as Aboriginal land, subject to immediate leaseback to the Director of as much of that land as is required to continue to form part of the Park.
The Director is not the Crown for the purposes of the Land Rights Act in its current form and that would prevent the land from being granted after it is scheduled.
The Bill amends the Land Rights Act to allow deeds of grant for the land to be delivered to Aboriginal Land Trusts and to take effect despite the interests of the Director.
The Bill also repeals certain existing provisions of the Land Rights Act relating to land descriptions in the Kakadu region that will be made redundant by adding the relevant land to Schedule 1.
The grants of these areas of land is supported by stakeholders including the Northern Territory Government, Northern Land Council and other local stakeholders.
I commend the Bill to the chamber.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (PLANNING AND LAND MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2017
Today I introduce into Parliament a Bill to improve the ability of the National Capital Authority—the NCA—to look after the Commonwealth interest in Canberra as our capital city.
This Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017 will strengthen governance arrangements for the NCA.
The NCA is a statutory authority that manages the Commonwealth's interests in the capital, especially through planning and the management of major Commonwealth assets in nationally important areas.
The purpose of this Bill is to improve the governance, transparency and oversight of NCA activities by enhancing the role of its Authority—in effect, the NCA Board. Currently, the Accountable Authority for the NCA under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (the PGPA Act) is its Chief Executive alone.
Currently, the Authority lacks any prescribed corporate management responsibilities, including oversight of the NCA's finances. With the exception of planning decisions, members of the Authority have a role that is principally advisory.
There is a need for a reformed corporate structure that provides greater transparency and accountability. This would also provide the Chief Executive and the Minister with the level of support they require.
The Bill therefore amends the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 to establish the Authority as the accountable authority under the PGPA Act. It also empowers the Authority to provide the Chief Executive with specific directions in relation to the operation of the NCA.
The Chief Executive will remain the head of the agency under the Public Service Act 1999. While the Authority would take on a greater role in oversighting corporate management, most day-to-day operations would still be handled by the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive will continue to have a close working relationship with the Authority by remaining an Authority member.
The Bill also clarifies some provisions of the legislation, such as by confirming that Ministerial directions to the Authority are legislative instruments. It includes minor updates to ensure that the PALM Act is consistent with current practice on public sector governance. It makes all Authority members officials of the NCA so as to engage PGPA Act provisions on the duties of officials, notably care and diligence.
There will be no changes to the NCA's basic functions, including concerning the planning of Canberra.
Conclusion
The Bill will ensure that the NCA continues to operate efficiently and effectively in planning and managing the national capital. It will do so by enabling the NCA to operate in way more consistent with the Government's expectations of a modern agency.
I call on both Houses to show bipartisan support for the Bill and its non-controversial measures.
With this, I commend the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL RADIO) BILL 2017
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 continues the Government's commitment to a more streamlined regulatory framework for digital radio. These amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (Radcomms Act) further simplify digital radio processes. This includes efficiencies across the planning, licensing and allocation processes making for a more efficient rollout of digital radio services in regional Australia.
This government remains committed to removing unnecessary and outdated regulations that hamper the industry from delivering what audiences want. The reform agenda requires continuous effort. Small improvements such as these, over time, will provide a cumulative benefit to industry and consumers. The Bill makes a modest but welcome contribution in this regard.
Digital radio is now recognised as an important component of Australia's broadcasting landscape. In the decade since it was legislated, digital radio is now available in all Australian mainland state capital cities—Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney—and planning is being undertaken for permanent digital radio services in Canberra, Darwin and Hobart.
Digital radio is being introduced to Australia in a staged way. Commercial radio broadcasters are the key driver in providing digital radio services in new areas, by targeting those areas where they are most likely to be commercially viable. Digital radio remains a supplementary part of the many broadcasting services available to Australians and the Government does not consider a switchover program to be appropriate. The Government also considers it important that the radio broadcasting industry remain the key driver in the rollout of digital radio into regional Australia. Nonetheless, the Government recognises that it still has a role to play in ensuring that any legislative or regulatory impediments to introduction of digital radio into regional Australia are removed and that the digital radio regulatory regime is working efficiently.
The Government acknowledges the ongoing work of industry members of the Digital Radio Planning Committee for Regional Australia. This Committee, which is chaired by the ACMA, was established following a recommendation of the Digital Radio Report tabled by this Government in July 2015. Committee members include the Department of Communications and the Arts, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, Commercial Radio Australia, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Committee has become a critical forum for industry, the regulator and Government to plan the future rollout of digital radio in regional Australia. Some of the digital radio issues being addressed in this Bill are a direct result of discussions at the Planning Committee. All the measures in the Bill are supported by Committee members.
The Bill intends to assist industry to expedite the rollout of digital radio to regional Australia. The Bill shortens several legislatively prescribed timeframes and removes unnecessary or redundant steps in the digital radio planning and licensing processes. Doing this reduces the overall time and cost for commercial broadcasters who want to rollout digital radio to viable regional markets. These benefits also extend to the community and national broadcasters.
Furthermore, it is important to recognise that radio broadcasters, whether they are located in metropolitan or regional markets, need to be more innovative and responsive to changes in audience demand and listening patterns. While this is a matter for the broadcasters themselves, the Government does have a role to play in ensuring the regulatory arrangements reflect the realities of the 21st century broadcasting market.
As part of this role, the Government is also introducing a measure in the Bill that will implement measures to clarify the calculation of digital radio excess capacity entitlements in the Radcomms Act. At present, there is the potential for existing excess capacity entitlements to be extinguished by later excess capacity allocations on foundation multiplexes. The Government considers this is not fair to the digital radio broadcasters who acquired excess capacity by allocation or competitive auction. The proposed measures aim to clarify that existing excess capacity entitlements allocated to content providers are considered when determining new excess capacity allocations. This will provide certainty to content providers on their existing excess capacity entitlements on foundation digital radio multiplexes, as well as other parties seeking access to excess capacity entitlements.
The Bill represents a necessary step in facilitating the rollout of digital radio to regional Australia.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FOREIGN MEDIA OWNERSHIP AND COMMUNITY RADIO) BILL 2017
Australia's media industry is under sustained and significant pressure, as digital technologies upend established business models and intensify competition for audiences and revenue.
In October 2017, the Government secured passage of legislation that will enable Australia's media companies to deal with these challengers and better compete in what is now a global media environment.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Act 2017 implemented a number of the key measures of the Government's Broadcasting and Content Reform Package: the abolition of broadcasting licence fees; the introduction of a charge on spectrum more reflective of its value; and changes to the anti-siphoning scheme and list.
These are important initiatives that modernise broadcasting and content regulation and will improve the sustainability of Australia's media industry. But they don't mark the end of the reform program, and there is more work to be done.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017 implements two measures developed as part of the passage of the media reform bills.
The first is the establishment of a Register of Foreign Ownership of Media Assets (Register), to be overseen and administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The Register will enhance the transparency of foreign investment in Australian media companies and the levels and sources of such investment.
The second measure relates to applications for community radio broadcasting licences. The Bill will introduce a new 'local content' criterion that the ACMA can consider in assessing such applications, giving applicants the opportunity and incentive to deliver more localised content.
I now turn to each of these measures.
Foreign investment plays an important role in the Australian economy and is a key source of funding for Australian media companies. Despite this, there are few sources of information on this type of investment. Existing regulatory frameworks, including the disclosure obligations applicable for entities listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, don't identify foreign investors, and there is no information about investment in privately held media companies.
From a public policy perspective this represents a significant information gap. The media has the unique ability to set news agendas and the context in which important issues are analysed and discussed. In turn, this allows the media to inform and shape community views on social, economic, and political issues.
There is a strong case to ensure foreign investment in the Australian media is better understood, and the Register proposed in this Bill will achieve this outcome. It will ensure that the Australian public is not left in the dark about the levels and sources of foreign investment in Australian media companies.
Under the Register, foreign persons will be required to notify the ACMA of any interests in regulated Australian media companies—commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers—where those interests exceed two and a half per cent.
The main reporting obligations will be annual, at the end of each relevant financial year, along with any circumstance where a person becomes, or ceases to be, a foreign stakeholder for the purposes of the Register. A foreign person must report their interests within 30 days of the end of the financial year, or the change in their status as a foreign person, as applicable.
The details to be published on the Register will be limited to the foreign stakeholder's name and country of residence (for individuals), or the place of incorporation or formation for companies and trusts. Published information will also include the relevant interests in the media company, and the reason that the investor is a foreign person.
Importantly, there will be protections in place to prevent the disclosure of commercially sensitive information. Foreign stakeholders will not be required to disclose sensitive information as part of the Register. However, if they do, the ACMA will be prohibited from publishing such information where it would materially impact the interests of the person.
Although foreign stakeholders that are individuals will be required to disclose some personal information, for administrative and identification purposes, only their name and ordinary country of residence will be published on the Register.
The reporting provisions established through the Register will be civil penalty provisions, and also designated infringement notice provisions. If a foreign person fails to comply with these reporting requirements, then the person may be liable for an administrative penalty.
At the end of each financial year, the ACMA will present a report to the Minister, setting out the interests held by foreign stakeholders in Australian media companies. The ACMA will also have the opportunity to identify and comment on foreign investment trends, which will assist future Government decision making in the media industry.
The Register will complement existing regulatory frameworks governing foreign investment in Australia. It draws on key terms from the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, such as 'foreign government', 'foreign government investor', 'foreign person', and 'ordinarily resident'. It is also modelled, to an extent, on the National Register of Foreign Ownership of Water Entitlements, particularly in terms of the timing for disclosure and the type of information that foreign persons would need to supply.
As a whole, the Register will provide greater transparency regarding foreign investment in the Australian media, while minimising the impost of a disclosure obligation on industry.
I now turn to the second measure in the Bill, which amends the criteria for allocating and renewing community radio licences.
When assessing an application for a community radio broadcasting licence, the ACMA will now be required to specifically consider the extent to which the applicant will provide material of local significance. Material of local significance is defined as material that is produced or hosted in the relevant licence area, or relates to the licence area.
This measure builds on the natural strengths of community radio and will encourage
broadcasters to consider how they can boost local participation in creating programs, or how they can provide more coverage of topics and issues that are relevant to their local communities.
Material of local significance would be given the same priority as the existing criteria for licence allocation decisions under the Broadcasting Services Act1992. This will provide the ACMA with appropriate discretion to weigh up the relative strengths and weaknesses of different applicants.
This is important, as community radio services are highly varied and represent a diverse range of community interests. This measure will encourage localism in a way that takes these differences into account, and does not disadvantage services that meet particular community needs.
The measures contained in this Bill represent the next steps in the Government's commitment to implementing holistic reform to the Australian media industry.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ONLINE CONTENT SERVICES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2017
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and other legislation to introduce a new regulatory framework to regulate gambling promotions on online content services. The Bill will also establish a regulatory mechanism that can be used to apply the new gambling promotions restrictions to broadcasting services if necessary.
The Government has listened to community concern about the scheduling and quantity of gambling promotions shown during live sporting events, particularly in the context of its impact on child audiences.
In response to this, the Government's Broadcast and Content Reform Package included new community safeguards in the form of additional restrictions on gambling promotions shown or broadcast during live sporting events in children's viewing hours. Importantly, the Government determined that these new restrictions should apply across commercial free to air television, the Special Broadcasting Service, subscription television, commercial radio and online content services.
The additional restrictions will prohibit all gambling commercials and promotions during live coverage of sporting events, from five minutes before the scheduled start of play to five minutes after the conclusion of play. It is intended that under rules made by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the restrictions will apply between the hours of 5:00am and 8:30pm.
The restrictions will apply to all audio and audio-visual live coverage of sports. The types of gambling promotions covered will include advertising, sponsorship announcements and promotional content. The Government intends that the new restrictions will be in effect across all platforms by 30 March 2018.
The restrictions will be applied to broadcast services via changes to their industry codes of practice. As no equivalent industry arrangements exist for online content services, this Bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act to establish a flexible, fit for purpose regulatory framework that can be used to apply the gambling promotions restrictions to online content services.
The gambling promotions reform will mean that, for the first time, broadcast-like program standards will be applied to online content services.
This Bill, once enacted, will add Schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act. Schedule 8 is an enabling framework that will allow the ACMA to make service provider rules which regulate gambling promotional content shown on online content services in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event.
The online content service provider rules will be a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act2003, and subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.
A key objective of the policy reform is for, to the extent possible, the same restrictions to apply to broadcast, subscription and online providers. It is intended that the online content service provider rules will be similar to existing code-based gambling promotions restrictions that apply to broadcast services.
Schedule 8 provides that the ACMA may make rules regulating or prohibiting gambling promotional content provided on online content services in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event.
Under Schedule 8 an 'online content service' is one that delivers, or allows the public to access, content using the internet, where the service has a geographical link to Australia.
A service will have a geographical link to Australia if an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the service is targeted at individuals who are physically present in Australia or, any of the content provided on the service is likely to appeal to the public, or a section of the public, in Australia. In addition, for the service to be subject to online content service provider rules, the end user must be physically present in Australia.
Consistent with Government policy, under Schedule 8, gambling promotional content will be taken to be 'provided in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event' where it is provided in the period beginning five minutes before the start of play and concluding five minutes after the conclusion of play.
Where the content consists of promotions of betting odds by match commentators, or the appearance of representatives of gambling firms at or around sporting venues, these time thresholds are extended to 30 minutes before and after play. This reflects the existing rules in broadcast codes of practice. It will also allow the online content service provider rules to better protect the community from the potential adverse effects of gambling promotions which link sports personalities and gambling products.
Consistent with broadcast codes of practice, 'live', in relation to coverage of a sporting event, would include both real time and delayed coverage where the delayed coverage is provided as if it were live and begins no later than the conclusion of the sporting event. However the Bill also provides that a program can no longer be considered live, for the purposes of the rules, once the sporting event has concluded.
The term 'sporting event' is defined to include the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, and other similar games. Given that new kinds of sporting events are constantly emerging, the online content service provider rules may also, for certainty, provide that particular events are, or are not, 'sporting events' for the purposes of Schedule 8. The term 'sporting event' otherwise has its ordinary meaning.
The Government recognises that there are a range of online content services, with different business models and technical characteristics, and that the online content service provider rules will not need to regulate all online content services.
Accordingly, rules made under Schedule 8 will not apply to simulcast services—that is, services that do no more than simultaneously stream a broadcast service that is already subject to code based gambling promotions restrictions. This prevents such content from being subject to two separate regulatory regimes.
Schedule 8 will also empower the ACMA to determine that a specific online content service or online content service provider is exempt from the rules. A refusal to make, as well as a decision to vary or revoke, an individual exemption determination, will be subject to merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
In addition, Schedule 8 will empower the ACMA to, by legislative instrument, determine that online content services or online content service providers included in a specified class are exempt from the online content service provider rules.
In terms of compliance and enforcement, it is anticipated that investigations of potential breaches of the online content service provider rules will, as is the case with broadcasting codes of practice, be largely complaints driven. The online content service provider rules may also require relevant online content service providers to keep records that will allow the ACMA to ascertain whether they have been complying with the rules.
Schedule 8, in conjunction with existing provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act, sets out the mechanisms that may be used to enforce compliance with the online content service provider rules, including infringement notices, civil penalties and remedial directions. The Government does not consider that criminal penalties are appropriate sanctions for breaches of online content service provider rules, and I note that breaches of broadcast industry codes of practice do not, of themselves, result in potential criminal penalties.
As noted earlier the Bill also includes a regulatory mechanism that can be used to apply the new gambling promotions restrictions to broadcasting services should industry codes of practice not be amended in time. I can report that broadcast sectors are working closely with the Government and the ACMA to ensure that their codes are appropriately amended and I anticipate that the Government will have no need to mandate these important restrictions. I am grateful for the constructive engagement of broadcast sectors to date.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this enabling legislation, which provides increased powers to the regulator and helps ensure a more consistent approach to regulating gambling promotional content across platforms, will send a clear message to the public that the Government is committed to implementation of its policy to enact additional restrictions on gambling promotions.
The announced gambling promotions restrictions will establish a clear safe zone during which parents and caregivers may have confidence that children will not be exposed to gambling promotions by viewing live sports events.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (REGIONAL AND SMALL PUBLISHERS INNOVATION FUND) BILL 2017
In October this year, the Parliament passed a landmark package of reforms that will modernise broadcasting and content regulation and improve the sustainability of Australia's media industry. A number of additional measures were developed as part of that process and this Bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017, establishes the legislative framework for one of those measures.
The Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund will assist regional and small publishers to transition, compete and innovate more successfully in a changing media environment. These news providers are operating under acute and sustained pressure. The business models that have traditionally supported journalism, particularly those funded by advertising revenue, are being challenged, and the need to adapt successful subscriber and other revenue models is proving especially demanding for smaller publications.
The Bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) to establish the legislative framework for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. The Fund will provide $16.7 million in grants each year from 2018-19 to 2020-21, via a competitive application process, to assist small and regional publishers adapt to the challenges of providing quality news content in a digital media environment.
The Bill establishes the legislative authority for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to administer the Fund. It will require the ACMA to enter into an agreement with each funding recipient, specifying the terms and conditions of the grant, before making any payments, and will require the recipient to spend the funding on activities that relate to the newspaper, magazine or periodical or online content service.
The Bill will also allow the Minister for Communications to establish a Committee to provide advice to the ACMA in its administration of the Fund, including its assessment of applications for grants. It is expected that the Committee will comprise members who have significant experience with news, journalism, and other media-related content and will include, as a minimum, a representative from each of the Australian Press Council, the Walkley Foundation and Country Press Australia. The ACMA will be required to have regard to any advice provided by the Committee in exercising its powers under the Fund, although this won't limit the matters to which the ACMA may have regard.
The Bill will require the ACMA to include in its annual report the details of the name of each recipient of one or more grants of financial assistance, the total amount of those grants, and any advice given during the financial year to the ACMA by the Committee. This will ensure full transparency in relation to the oversight of the Fund and the decisions made by the ACMA to provide grants to publishers.
The Fund complements the core components of the Government's Broadcasting and Content Reform Package by fostering an adaptable and sustainable Australian media industry. Journalism that investigates and explains public policy and issues of public significance is critical for our democracy. But its provision is under challenge by a changing media environment. The Fund will assist Australian publishers, particularly smaller publishers and those operating in regional areas, to transition their businesses to the new operating environment, and continue to provide news content that informs and engages Australians across the country.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (SERVICE PROVIDERS) BILL 2017
There are significant opportunities in the digital environment for improving the way we provide educational services, provide services to people with a disability, and promote cultural and historical experiences in Australia. Many of these opportunities, however, may put Australia's educational and cultural institutions and organisations assisting people with a disability at a high risk of copyright infringement. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging the development of new and innovative services for the benefit of all Australians, and ensuring that Australian creators can retain control and derive value from their copyright protected material. Ensuring respect for the creative efforts and economic rights of creators is an ongoing challenge for all participants in the digital environment. Extension of the safe harbour scheme to service providers in these sectors will provide greater certainty to educational and cultural institutions and to those organisations assisting people with a disability about their responsibilities in engaging in the online space.
The current safe harbour scheme in the Copyright Act 1968 was introduced following the commencement of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement in 2005. The scheme in the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement was intended to provide an alternative to court proceedings for copyright owners where their infringing material is hosted, cached or linked to by a service provider or where a provider's network services are used to infringe copyright. It sets out conditions that a service provider must comply with, including in some situations, taking down infringing material or removing links to infringing material when they have been notified of a suspected infringement by a copyright owner. When the scheme was originally implemented in Australia, it was restricted only to carriage service providers—or providers of telecommunications services (such as Internet Service Providers) as they are more commonly known. This cautious approach was taken because the Internet was still in its infancy.
This Bill, through the extension of the existing safe harbour scheme, will ensure that a greater range of service providers can work with copyright owners to effectively protect copyright material, without recourse to litigation. The extended scheme enabled by this Bill will apply the safe harbour provisions to educational institutions such as universities and schools as well as libraries, archives, museums and organisations assisting people with a disability. Where these additional service providers comply with the requirements of the safe harbour scheme, including the operation of a 'notice and take down system', their liability for monetary remedies will be limited.
The education, cultural and disability sector generally take a very risk averse approach to protecting and managing the copyright of others. Many of the institutions and organisations who, under this Bill, will be covered by the safe harbour scheme already comply with the requirements of the scheme, and actively work with copyright owners to remove or disable access to infringing material residing on their systems or networks or to take action against repeat infringers. In doing so they dedicate a significant amount of resources on their processes. Yet they still remain potentially liable for the infringement of their users which is beyond their active control.
The Bill will reduce the potential exposure of these sectors to legal liability for authorising copyright infringement when third parties use their networks or services in a way that breaches copyright. This amendment will provide certainty to a group of institutions and organisations which provide services that are in the public interest and will support them in being more innovative in the online environment. This will therefore encourage these institutions and organisations to create and deliver enhanced online services for all Australians.
Copyright owners will benefit from the extended scheme as it will provide them with a consistent mechanism for working with those organisations covered by the Bill to address copyright infringement on a broader scale, rather than having to pursue each and every individual who infringes copyright online.
Earlier this year the Government introduced and passed the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017 which was the result of a collaborative effort between rights holders, the education and cultural sector and the disability sector. The passage of the Disability Access Act was an important step in simplifying and modernising the Copyright Act 1968 in response to specific challenges and concerns identified by rights holders and those sectors of the community. This Bill now builds upon the effective working relationship that already exists between these sectors and copyright owners as a result of the Disability Access Act.
Users of these institutions and organisations' services will also have additional protection under the safe harbour scheme. The changes will give users a clear process for ensuring that where their material is removed from the institutions or organisations' systems or networks, in line with a notice under the safe harbour scheme, it can be reinstated when the user can demonstrate the material is not infringing. This will ensure, for example, that students and researchers can protect their legitimate use of copyright material in online forums.
The Government has made the decision to make this incremental expansion of the safe harbour scheme, so that it can continue to consult on how best to reform the scheme to apply to other online service providers in the future. In Australia, the expansion of the safe harbour provisions has been reviewed in six separate government reviews over a period of more than ten years. Each of these reviews called for submissions from the public. The Productivity Commission's 2016 review of Australia's Intellectual Property Arrangements was the most recent of these reviews and it recommended that the scheme be extended to all online service providers.
The Government is, however, aware that a blanket extension of safe harbour remains a highly contested reform. This is why we chose to undertake further consultation this year. The consultation demonstrated the full spectrum of views from complete support to strident opposition. Both sides are worthy of a full examination. The Government has appreciated the open and frank dialogue that we have had with representatives from both sides.
On the one hand we have heard that extending safe harbour would encourage piracy, contribute to the gap in revenue between subscription and ad based content services, and remove the ability for rights holders to seek licence revenue from online services. Of particular concern have been scenarios in which service providers derive profit from the infringing activities of their users. There are also strong concerns that the current conditions in the safe harbour scheme are no longer effective in addressing infringement and that they need to be reconsidered to ensure they promote a collaborative and supportive online environment.
On the other hand we hear that Australia has legal uncertainty about the extent to which service providers can be liable for the actions of their users, which has a chilling effect on innovation. Service providers, who in many cases perform the same role as a carriage service provider, have pointed out that they are the ones that have no protection and that this makes Australia uncompetitive compared with other countries who have a safe harbour scheme. Internet users and service providers alike have argued that safe harbour provides a simple non-court based option to address infringement on the internet which should be a good thing for the creative sector.
The worst outcome would be for the Government to inadvertently impact on rights holders' ability to realise returns on their creative and financial investments. Australia has thriving creative industries whose work contributes enormously to our economy and our cultural life. The Government is trying to achieve an environment that encourages innovation, but does not want to do that at the expense of a vibrant cultural and arts sector and the thousands of Australians it employs. At the same time the Government recognises that there are many institutions and organisations that operate in the public interest of all Australians and there are actors on the internet who are trying to build a robust and innovative Australian digital economy.
So far, opposing parties have been unable to meet in the middle of this protracted debate. So this Bill starts the process of safe harbour reform by responding to where there is broad consensus and extending the scheme to a group of institutions and organisations that all agree are responsible players in the copyright space.
The current Australian safe harbour scheme, which this Bill will extend, is governed by procedural provisions in the Copyright Regulations 1969. These Regulations provide the additional details about exactly how the safe harbour scheme works including: how industry codes must be developed, how notifications and notices should be issued and received, and the procedures for notice and takedown of infringing material. As part of the Department of Communications and the Arts review of the sunsetting Copyright Regulations 1969, over the past six months stakeholders have had an opportunity to indicate how these provisions might be updated. Shortly, the Government expects to remake these Regulations in largely the same form as their sunsetting version, save for some further enhancements to give effect to provisions contained in the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017. However, the passage of this Bill will require some further updates to the Regulations.
Therefore, in early 2018 the Government will release an Exposure Draft of amending Regulations to facilitate the extension of the safe harbour scheme for consultation prior to passage of this Bill. The Government will focus on ensuring that the mechanics of Australia's safe harbour scheme, contained within the Regulations, operate effectively in Australia's digital environment for copyright owners and the broader range of service providers defined in this Bill.
The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to find a way to further extend the safe harbour scheme in a way that allows Australian businesses to harness the significant opportunities of the growing digital economy while ensuring respect for the creative efforts and economic rights of creators. The Government is confident that through this staged approach it can find a way to provide a practical and responsive safe harbour framework that operates effectively in the Australian environment.
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMBATTING CORPORATE CRIME) BILL 2017
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017 will amend the Criminal Code and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to enhance the tools available to law enforcement to tackle corporate crime.
Corporate crime is estimated to cost Australia $8.5 billion every year. It hurts business, it hurts Australia's international reputation and it hurts our economic wellbeing.
The opaque and sophisticated nature of corporate crime can make it difficult to identify and easy to conceal. Investigations into corporate misconduct can be hampered by the need to process large amounts of complex data, and evidence may be held overseas. Court proceedings can be long and expensive, particularly against well-resourced corporate defendants.
The measures in the Bill seek to address these challenges.
The Bill will remove undue impediments to the successful investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery. Foreign bribery is an inherently challenging crime to investigate. The OECD has reported that, across all parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, it takes an average of 7.3 years to conclude foreign bribery cases.
The offence in its current form poses challenges for typical foreign bribery cases. Prosecutions can also be hampered where evidence is held offshore and where bribes are disguised as legitimate payments.
The Bill will address these issues by expanding and clarifying the scope of the foreign bribery offence.
Under the foreign bribery offence as currently drafted, the prosecution needs to show that both the bribe and the business advantage sought were 'not legitimately due'.
This presents challenges where bribes are concealed as legitimate payments (for instance, agent fees).
The Bill replaces the requirement that the bribe and the advantage sought be 'not legitimately due' with the concept of 'improperly influencing' a foreign public official. This better reflects the conduct of foreign bribery. The Bill also amends the definition of 'foreign public official' to include candidates for public office.
The Bill also broadens the scope of the foreign bribery offence to encapsulate bribery conducted to obtain any advantage, such as a personal advantage, rather than requiring that the bribery be perpetrated to achieve a business advantage. This reflects law enforcement experience that bribes can include the bestowal of personal honours or the processing of visa requests.
The Bill further removes the existing requirement that, for the offence to be established, the foreign public official be influenced in the exercise of their official duties. The Bill also clarifies that the offence does not require the accused to have had a specific business or advantage in mind, and that the business or advantage can be obtained for someone else.
The Bill also introduces a new corporate offence of failure to prevent foreign bribery. This new offence will apply where an associate of a body corporate has committed bribery for the profit or gain of the body corporate. However, the offence will not apply if the body corporate can demonstrate that it has 'adequate procedures' in place to prevent the commission of foreign bribery by its associate.
The United Kingdom has successfully used a similar offence to prosecute companies in several foreign bribery cases.
The Bill will also implement a Commonwealth Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) scheme.
The DPA scheme will bolster cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the business community to uncover and deal with corporate crime, and provide a new tool for holding offending corporations to account.
DPAs have been used to tackle corporate crime with significant success in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Under the DPA scheme, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to invite corporations suspected of certain serious corporate criminal offences to negotiate an agreement to comply with a range of specified conditions. If the corporation fulfils its obligations under the DPA, it will not be prosecuted for the offences specified in the DPA.
Because the purpose of the DPA scheme is to tackle corporatecrime, a DPA will only be available with respect to one or more of the serious corporate offences specified in the Bill. These offences are often difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute, and include offences relating to foreign bribery, false accounting, dealing with proceeds of crime, money laundering and dishonest conduct, as well as sanctions offences. Under the scheme, the Director of Public Prosecutions will have the discretion to extend a DPA to also apply to additional less serious offences where it is appropriate to do so.
A DPA will not be appropriate in all cases. The scheme will provide prosecutors with an additional option in cases where a company is actively cooperating with authorities.
The DPA scheme strikes a balance between encouraging corporations to self-report misconduct, and ensuring that a DPA does not represent a 'free pass' to corporations that have engaged in serious corporate crime.
The scheme offers corporations an opportunity to avoid some of the reputational and financial costs associated with lengthy investigation and trial processes, but will typically require a party to a DPA to admit to agreed facts, cooperate with any related investigation, pay a financial penalty and implement a compliance program.
Each DPA will be assessed and approved by a former judicial officer to ensure that the DPA is in the interests of justice and that its terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
The DPA scheme is a new and innovative approach to combatting corporate crime, and it is important to ensure that stakeholders understand the benefits of the scheme and can inform how it works in practice. As such, the Government will consult publicly on proposed guidance material detailing how the scheme operates in early 2018.
The amendments in the Bill will strengthen Australia's implementation and enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
The Bill will enhance Australia's criminalisation of foreign bribery and assist in meeting our international obligations to combat corruption and related corporate criminal conduct. Through the establishment of a DPA scheme, the Bill also will provide a new tool to law enforcement to help tackle the challenges of investigating and prosecuting serious corporate offences.
This Bill demonstrates that the Government is committed to tackling corporate offending, and to protecting Australia from the corrosive effects of corporate crime.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
ENHANCING ONLINE SAFETY (NON-CONSENSUAL SHARING OF INTIMATE IMAGES) BILL 2017
The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill2017 implements the Government's commitment to take strong action to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
The term 'non-consensual sharing of intimate images' refers to the sharing or distribution by a relevant electronic service, a designated internet service, or social media service, of an image or video of a person or persons portrayed in sexual or otherwise intimate manner, which has been shared without consent. This behaviour is colloquially referred to as 'revenge porn' or 'image-based abuse'.
Intimate images might be obtained with or without consent of the subject and can come from a variety of different sources including recordings from hidden devices, hacking into personal electronic storage such as computers, hard drives, cloud-storage or email accounts, images shared with an individual with consent, and subsequently distributed without consent, or images doctored to falsely portray an individual.
The sharing of images can occur over various electronic services, including email, text or multimedia messaging, social media services, websites including mainstream pornography sites, message boards and forum websites, or websites specifically designed to host images shared without consent.
The reasons for non-consensual sharing of intimate images are varied. For example, it can often occur as a result of the ex-partner of a victim seeking revenge, or it can also involve acquaintances or complete strangers distributing the images either maliciously or simply because they think it might be a fun thing to do. However, in the most part, the practice is generally intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing of intimate images, or through the threat to share. Often such threats are made in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce, bully or punish a victim. Other motives might include sexual gratification, entertainment, social notoriety and financial gain.
During the Government's consultation about this Bill we have heard that the psychological impact on victims can be significant, and can have negative implications which affect their reputation, family, employment, social relationships and even personal safety.
The need for government action
This issue is a global concern with many countries taking targeted action against this unacceptable practice. The Government recognises that the sharing of intimate images without consent is also an emerging issue of great concern here in Australia.
According to a report published in May 2017 by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, one in five Australians, one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians have experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Previously, the impacts of intimate image distribution were limited by the restrictions of the physical world. However, as noted by academics from Bond University, 'as a result of movement to the digital world, globalisation and society's reliance on technology, many more of our lifestyle activities are conducted in the digital world'. The ubiquity of internet connected mobile devices has changed the way we socialise and increased the speed and reach of information shared online.
Existing laws
There are existing criminal offence provisions available in relation to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images at both the Commonwealth and state level.
Under Commonwealth law, it is an offence to use a carriage service in a menacing, harassing, or offensive way (section 474 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code)). The maximum penalty for this offence is three years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $37,800. Since 2004 there have been 927 charges proven against 458 defendants under this offence, including a number of cases in relation to image-based abuse conduct.
Victoria, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and Western Australia have criminalised this behaviour and there have already been a number of prosecutions under existing state laws including broad laws covering stalking, identity theft and domestic violence. The Northern Territory and Queensland have indicated their intentions to introduce specific criminal offences for this behaviour.
These laws do differ slightly across jurisdictions which is why the Commonwealth worked with states and territories through COAG to support a nationally-consistent approach to criminal offences relating to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
On 20 May 2017, the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council published the National Statement of Principles on the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Alignment on key principles is an important initiative as most offences are likely to be prosecuted at the state level.
The Commonwealth continues to work with states and territories on this issue.
Consultation on a proposed civil penalty regime
On 23 November 2016, the Government committed to consult on a proposed civil penalty regime targeted at perpetrators who share intimate images without consent and the website and content hosts that are involved.
The Government heard from a range of stakeholders including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, victims and members of the Government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group.
The majority of stakeholders were broadly supportive of a civil penalty regime as it would provide victims a timely, accessible and effective means of redress not available to them through the criminal justice system. The ability to take down intimate images quickly is a primary concern of victims and support services.
Feedback from police indicates that victims are often reluctant to pursue criminal charges against perpetrators which could result in lengthy and expensive court processes, which in turn has the effect of amplifying the harm inflicted on the victim.
Enhancing Online Safety (Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017
The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017 implements a civil penalty regime for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
The Bill introduces a new prohibition for the non-consensual posting, or threat to post, of an intimate image on a social media service, relevant electronic service which includes images shared by email, text or multimedia messages, or a designated internet service. A designated internet service could include websites and peer to peer file services.
During the consultation process stakeholders reached consensus that the eSafety Commissioner was best positioned to administer the civil penalty regime. This would utilise existing expertise within the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and build on the eSafety Commissioner's ability to take fast, effective action to have images removed and limit further distribution with minimal additional stress to victims.
Under the civil penalty regime, a victim or someone authorised to act on behalf of the victim, can make a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner by phone, in writing or through the Commissioner's online complaints portal.
The eSafety Commissioner will have the discretion to action various enforcement mechanisms such as investigating complaints, issuing infringement notices, accepting enforceable undertakings or seeking injunctions.
The Commissioner will also be able to issue formal warnings for breaching the prohibitions and will have the power to issue removal and objection notices to both perpetrators, social media services and content hosts. The Bill will introduce a penalty of up to 500 penalty units (up to $105,000 for individuals and up to $525,000 for corporations) for a breach of the prohibition, or failure to comply with a removal notice.
National online reporting portal
On 16 October 2017, the Government welcomed the pilot launch of a new national portal for reporting instances of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The portal is a world first government-led initiative developed by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and provides immediate and tangible support to victims of image-based abuse.
The portal gives victims a place to seek assistance and report instances of image-based abuse. It provides clear and concise information about the practical steps victims can take to reduce the impact of the abuse.
The pilot is designed as a test platform to evaluate the volume and complexity of reports about image-based abuse. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner expects to formally launch the portal in early 2018. This civil penalty regime will complement the portal.
Industry efforts in addressing the non-consensual sharing of intimate images
I would also like to commend those social media providers and content hosts that have taken steps to address this issue through the development of acceptable use guidelines, the adoption of complaints processes and the investment in technology which removes or prevents further posting of images. Victims have benefited from industry investment and responsiveness.
The Government expects that these social media providers and content hosts will build on this good work. It is noteworthy that the Bill will not prevent victims from approaching these services in the first instance to quickly remove images, rather than the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, if they wish to do so.
The Government also recognises the strong partnerships that many social media services, content hosts, and technology companies have established with the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and envisages that these relationships will continue to be pivotal in protecting Australians against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Conclusion
The Bill reflects the Government's ongoing commitment to keep Australians safe online.
The non-consensual sharing of intimate images is a significant issue that can have an adverse impact on victims, their families and the Australian community.
The Bill will prohibit the non-consensual posting of intimate images and the threat to post intimate images. It will empower the eSafety Commissioner with enforcement capabilities including the ability to take fast and effective action to have images removed and limit further sharing of images.
The civil penalty regime will complement existing criminal laws and provide another avenue for victims to seek assistance and redress. It will also send a clear message that in Australia, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society.
I thank stakeholders who provided input, either through submissions or attendance at the public workshops, during the consultation process. I make special mention of those victims who opened up about their own experiences. Their stories and views were essential in the development of this Bill.
I commend this Bill.
FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (FAMILY VIOLENCE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2017
Family violence and child abuse are unacceptable and require a strong legislative response. The Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017 will enhance the capacity of the justice system to provide effective outcomes for vulnerable Australians who are experiencing family violence. In particular, the Bill will strengthen the powers of courts to protect victims of family violence, and facilitate the resolution of family law matters by state and territory courts in appropriate cases.
The Commonwealth, states and territories have made shared commitments under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022, which sets an ambitious agenda for addressing the scourge of family violence affecting many Australians. Under Action 5.1 of the Third Action Plan of the National Plan, governments have agreed to implement supported recommendations of the Family Law Council's 2015 and 2016 reports on Families with Complex Needs and the Intersection of the Family Law and Child Protection Systems. This Bill implements four of those recommendations.
The Bill also responds directly to calls for reform from Victoria's 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence, the Australian and New South Wales Law Reform Commissions' 2010 report: Family ViolenceA National Legal Response, and the Victorian State Coroner's 2015 findings of the inquest into the death of Luke Geoffrey Batty. This Bill demonstrates the seriousness with which the Government has taken the findings of these enquiries, and its commitment to improving how the federal, state and territory justice systems help vulnerable families.
Increasing family law jurisdiction of state and territory courts
The Bill will reduce the need for families to interact with multiple courts across these systems to address their legal needs.
Currently, families are often required to navigate state or territory magistrates' courts and children's courts, and the federal family law courts. This can cause confusion, delay and prolonged exposure to risks of violence, particularly for families with complex needs such as family violence, mental health and substance abuse issues.
State and territory magistrates' courts already have a range of powers to make, vary and suspend family law orders under the Family Law Act. However, they don't always do this, and when they do, it can result in inconsistent state and federal orders. This can create uncertainty, but also increase risk, for families.
The Bill will also provide for an increased total property value, under which state magistrates' courts can hear contested family law property matters without both parties' consent. The current property value of $20 000 has not been updated since 1988. The Bill will allow a higher value to be prescribed in regulations, with the flexibility of prescribing different values for different states and territories.
Increasing this value will reduce the cost, pressure and risk for vulnerable families who are dealing with legal matters across multiple courts. State and territory magistrates' courts exercising limited property and parenting jurisdiction will enable vulnerable victims of family violence to achieve some measure of economic independence, without having to initiate separate proceedings in a family law court. This can accelerate their recovery process by facilitating earlier financial stability.
The Bill will allow relevant state and territory courts, such as children's courts, to be prescribed so that they can exercise family law parenting jurisdiction. This will provide children's court judicial officers with additional tools to make orders that support the best interests of children.
Family law orders will be a useful tool for the children's court where they can provide greater certainty to children and their carers. For example, where a matter is already before the children's court, a family law parenting order may give a protective carer, such as a grandparent, greater certainty about ongoing care arrangements for a child. It will also negate the need to institute future proceedings in a family law court.
The Government does not intend that state and territory courts become the primary fora for resolving family law disputes. The amendments in this Bill are designed to give state and territory courts greater flexibility to hear family law matters where parties are already appearing for a related state or territory proceeding. State and territory courts will retain their existing powers to transfer proceedings to the federal family law courts in the circumstances provided for in the Act.
To support this Bill, the Australian Government has funded the National Judicial College of Australia to deliver training to state and territory judicial officers about family law parenting and property matters.
Criminalisation of breaches for personal protection injunctions
Family violence is not a private matter, but a criminal offence of public concern. The Bill will reinforce this critical message by criminalising breaches of family law injunctions made for personal protection. Currently these injunctions are enforceable only by civil action brought in the family law courts. These consequences do not reflect the seriousness of family violence. The new offences will relieve the burden on family violence victims of bringing a private application for contravention of the injunction. Instead, breaches of an injunction will be enforceable by the police through criminal action, which will improve the safety of protected people under the order, including children.
The Government recognises the ongoing power and control dynamics of family violence and is committed to ensuring that the law prioritises the safety of victims. Accordingly, the Bill will prevent a perpetrator from relying on self-induced intoxication as a defence to a breach offence, and will ensure that victims cannot be charged with aiding and abetting the offence if their actions invite a breach.
Additional measures to improve the operation of the Family Law Act
The Bill will further improve the efficacy and protective function of the Family Law Act by ensuring that judges exercising family law jurisdiction do so expeditiously, and that the information children receive from a court is appropriate and would not expose them to further details of family violence. The Bill includes measures to avoid inconsistencies between family violence orders and family law orders, which can lead to confusion and increased risk for victims. It will also strengthen and codify the power of the family law courts to dismiss unmeritorious cases and proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, which will enable courts to better protect victims of family violence from perpetrators who attempt to use the family law system as a tool of continued victimisation. Lastly, the Bill will remove an outdated provision in the Family Law Act which deals with conjugal rights and marital services—concepts which are repugnant to our modern values of equality and respect within relationships.
Conclusion
This Bill will improve the justice system's capacity to produce timely and effective resolutions to matters involving family violence. It will respond directly to expert recommendations to address the needs of vulnerable families and support more effective interaction between the family law, and state and territory family violence and child protection systems. The measures in this Bill exemplify the Government's commitment to ensuring that the family law system will protect victims of family violence and hold perpetrators accountable.
FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (PARENTING MANAGEMENT HEARINGS) BILL 2017
When Mum and Dad fight, children hurt. The longer the conflict, the more intense the conflict—the greater the pain suffered by the children. Research shows that it is protracted conflict that harms children, rather than family separation itself. There is also longstanding recognition of the limitations of the adversarial method for resolving family disputes; in particular, the costs, delays and inherently oppositional structure of that system, which prolongs and exacerbates conflict.
It is critical that the family law system evolve to ensure that families can access the most effective mechanism to resolve their parenting disputes. We need a framework that reduces, not exacerbates, parental conflict. Our arrangements must support families to achieve safe, fair and timely outcomes and lay the foundations for healthy co-parenting.
For this reason, in May this year, the Turnbull Government announced that it would commit $12.7 million to pilot a new forum for resolving family law disputes.
The Family Law (Parenting Management Hearings) Bill 2017 provides for the establishment of this forum—the Parenting Management Hearings Panel—a new statutory authority designed to offer self-represented litigants a more flexible and inquisitorial alternative to the court process. During the pilot phase, there will be no costs charged to families who choose to participate.
Self-represented parents represent a significant proportion of litigants who come before the family law courts, and they often face considerable challenges due to the complexity of the rules that apply, and the adversarial nature of the system. Many self-represented litigants are struggling not only with the loss and pain of family separation, but with coexisting challenges, including housing and financial stress and mental health issues.
A key objective of the Panel is to give to parents who would otherwise be in a court without legal representation the option to obtain a binding decision about parenting arrangements in a quick, fair, just, informal and economical way, all the time ensuring that decisions are made in the best interests of children and that safety is prioritised.
Multi disciplinary
A key feature of the Parenting Management Hearings model is its multidisciplinary approach. The Panel will be constituted by members with specialist skills and expertise in family law, family dispute resolution, family violence, psychology, mental health and child development.
It is critical that families' situations are considered holistically and not seen predominantly through a technical legal lens. After all, family breakdown is not, fundamentally, about a legal dispute. It is about the deterioration of a relationship. The easy access to professionals who can offer a sophisticated understanding of the psychosocial dimensions of a family breakdown, and identify tools to address these, will support delivery of more nuanced and tailored services.
Inquisitorial
Many reviews and reports into the family law system have identified the need for a less adversarial approach to resolving parenting disputes. From the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs 2003 report, Every Picture Tells a Story, to the more recent report of the Family Law Council, in 2016, on Families with Complex Needs and the Intersection of the Family Law and Child Protection Systems.
Unlike the traditional adversarial system, where opposing sides assemble and present their evidence to advocate for a particular outcome, those managing the hearings will undertake inquiries and gather information to promote informed and safe outcomes for families. The rules of evidence will not apply, allowing parties to speak freely to the Panel members.
This approach will allow Panel members to investigate and focus on the information and issues most pertinent to the dispute, whilst ensuring that the process is procedurally fair, and vulnerable family members get the support they need.
Role of family dispute resolution
It is not intended that the Parenting Management Hearings Panel will replace the important role of family dispute resolution, a major innovation introduced by the Howard Government in 2006.
Families will still be required to try to resolve their disputes themselves where possible and appropriate, through family dispute resolution services, before making an application to the Panel.
Legal representation
As the forum is designed with self-represented litigants in mind, the Bill provides that legal representation during the hearings would be allowed only with the leave of the Panel, and be subject to any directions of the Panel.
In considering whether to grant leave to allow legal representation, the Panel must have regard to any instances of family violence between the parties, and the capacity of each party to effectively participate in the hearing. It is envisaged that legal representatives could support vulnerable parties in the hearings, including victims of family violence or parties with a disability. The intention is to ensure that these parties are assisted to present their case effectively, for the purpose of ensuring a fair hearing.
The general position that legal representation during the hearings is not allowed, does not, of course, preclude parties seeking legal advice in relation to their family law matter, and about the suitability of the Parenting Management Hearings Panel in their individual circumstances. Using legal services in this limited way may present a more cost-effective option for families than having to pay for legal services from initiation of legal action to its finalisation some years later.
Family violence and child abuse
Family violence is distressingly common among separated parents. A high proportion of matters in the family law system, and before the family law courts, involve family violence.
For this reason, it is critical that any forum established to resolve parenting disputes is equipped to identify and respond effectively to family violence.
The Bill requires that the Principal Member appointed to lead the Panel must be an experienced legal practitioner with extensive specialist knowledge and skills in family law, and in dealing with matters relating to family violence.
The Bill ensures that, in each case that comes before it, the Panel will give careful consideration to the family's individual circumstances, and will make an assessment about the capacity of the Panel to manage any safety risks for the family through the forum. The Panel will not be empowered to deal with applications involving allegations of child sexual abuse. Any application made to the Panel raising such allegations will continue be dealt with by the family law courts. The Family Court of Australia's Magellan Program provides for specific case management for matters involving serious allegations of child abuse, and ensures such cases are prioritised.
Importantly, if the Panel becomes aware of an allegation of child sexual abuse at any stage of proceedings, it will also be required to notify the relevant State and Territory child welfare agency.
The Panel will operate under an inquisitorial model, allowing Panel members to have more control over hearings, directing lines of enquiry and the focus of the hearing; and questions will be asked by Panel members, avoiding the potential for cross-examination of a victim by a perpetrator of family violence.
As part of the Parenting Management Hearings model, families will be referred to other support services, such as counselling and family violence services, to ensure that families and children are better supported at an earlier point than currently is the case, with a view to minimise the intensity and duration of conflict. This capacity is funded from the Budget commitment.
Best interests paramount
While the Bill offers a new forum for the resolution of parenting disputes, the Panel will use the legislative framework which is currently applied by the family law courts. In particular, the best interests of the child will remain the paramount consideration.
Enforcement
Parenting determinations made by the Panel will be enforceable by a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, in the same way as a parenting order made by a court.
A party will also be able to appeal a decision of the Panel, on a question of law, to the Federal Circuit Court.
Pilot
Subject to the passage of the Bill, it is intended that the first location of the Parenting Management Hearings Panel will commence operations in the Family Law Court Registry in Parramatta from mid-2018, and commence in a second location by the end of 2018.
Parenting Management Hearings will be a consent-based forum, and parties will be not be compelled to participate in the process.
Families in the two early pilot locations will have the option of making an application directly to the Panel as an alternative to making an application to a family law court. Parties may also be referred by a court, with their consent. In all cases, it will be a choice made by the parties themselves.
Evaluation
Given that the Bill provides for an innovative forum for the resolution of parenting disputes, it is critical that its operation be carefully and comprehensively evaluated, to provide a rigorous and robust evidence basis for ongoing policy and program development.
For this reason, the Bill requires that an independent review of the operation of new part IIIAAA of the Family Law Act be undertaken and finalised within three years after commencement.
Other measures
The establishment of the pilot program of the Parenting Management Hearings Panel represents one of several important commitments taken by the Turnbull Government to help improve access to family law services.
It complements a range of other Turnbull Government initiatives. These include:
The Australian Law Reform Commission will be able to consider the early observations about the operations of the Panel in the context of its broad and far-reaching review of the family law system, due to report by 31 March 2019.
Conclusion
This Bill provides the basis for an important development in the family law system. It establishes, for the first time, a forum specifically designed for self-represented litigants, and one that draws together multidisciplinary expertise in child development, psychology, family dispute resolution, social work and family violence, as well as legal expertise. It provides an important opportunity to offer to families a holistic approach which is less prone to exacerbate conflict and which provides early access to support services.
The Bill recognises that ongoing parental conflict leads to poorer outcomes for children, washing right through their futures, impairing their educational and employment outcomes, and hampering their future ability to nurture healthy, respectful relationships as adults, including with their children. The Bill exemplifies the Government's commitment to ensuring that families are able to resolve disputes about parenting arrangements as quickly, economically and safely as possible, and in the best interests of children.
GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AMENDMENT (AUTHORITY GOVERNANCE AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2017
The Bill amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to implement a new governance model for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The amendments will strengthen the strategic capability and capacity of the Authority to respond to challenges facing the Marine Park.
The Authority plays a crucial role in protecting the iconic Great Barrier Reef, a World Heritage site, now and for future generations. It was established through the Actto set up and manage the Marine Park, provide advice to the Government, conduct research and provide educational, advisory and information services.
The rapidly changing ecology of the Reef drives the need to transition the focus of Marine Park management from conservation and sustainable use, to actively fostering resilience and assisting the Reef to adapt and recover. Leading and implementing this transition in Marine Park management will challenge the Authority's capacity to adapt, facilitate community debates and understanding, and coordinate management actions with other Reef related organisations.
The Australian Government remains firmly committed to protecting the Reef. Effective operation of the Authority is central to this commitment. The Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan was established in 2015 as the centrepiece of Australia's efforts to build the resilience of the Reef. The Authority delivers key programs under the Reef 2050 plan such as the joint field management program and actions to control crown of thorns starfish.
In March 2017 the Government commissioned an independent review to determine whether the current governance arrangements continue to be the best fit to support the Authority's important and challenging work over the coming decades. The independent reviewer, Dr Wendy Craik AM, considered numerous public submissions and held more than 50 consultation meetings with individuals from relevant government, industry, community and conservation organisations.
The 2017 Review found these arrangements do not allow for sufficient strategic leadership or management commensurate with the requirements of the Authority's functions and responsibilities.
The Bill amends the Act to implement the governance arrangements recommended by the Review and accepted by the Government.
The Bill replaces the existing full-time Chairperson position with a part-time Chairperson and a full-time Chief Executive Officer, and establishes one additional part-time member position. It also strengthens requirements for the appointment and termination of members.
The Authority will continue to have responsibility for implementation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and will be supported by the Chief Executive Officer and staff of the agency.
In addition to implementing the new governance arrangements, the Bill also makes a minor technical amendment to clarify the relationship between the suite of legislation underpinning the functions of the Authority.
The Government recognises every effort needs to be made to mitigate threats to the Great Barrier Reef and is committed to its long-term protection and best-practice management.
The Bill will ensure the Authority is best placed to meet the significant challenges facing the Reef and continue its important work with Reef users, business, research and government and non-government partners.
NATIONAL BROADCASTERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ENHANCED TRANSPARENCY) BILL 2017
The National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017, amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act) and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (SBS Act) to require the annual reporting of employees, including on-air talent, whose combined salary and allowances are in excess of $200,000 annually.
I gave the national broadcasters an opportunity to implement this reporting measure and advised that if they did not agree I would bring forward legislation to amend the ABC Act and the SBS Act to force the obligation. The national broadcasters have advised that they will not undertake the voluntary reporting, therefore I am following through on my commitment.
This measure seeks to provide more transparency in how the broadcasters allocate Government funding in relation to remuneration for staff and on-air talent. This measure not only provides transparency in the allocation of funding but will also provide for the comparison of remuneration between male and female employees and on air-talent.
Reporting of salaries over $200,000
The national broadcasters each are required under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to prepare annual financial statements which comply with accounting standards and any other requirements prescribed by rules, as well as fairly presenting the financial position, performance and cash flow. There is however, no requirement for the national broadcasters to report on how it allocates its Government funding in the employment of high paid staff and on-air talent.
The payment of salaries and allowances in excess of $200,000 per annum is a major allocation of Government funding which should be visible to the taxpayer. The national broadcasters have an obligation to be transparent in their operations and how Government funding is allocated.
The ABC and SBS will be required to line-by-line, list the names, position, salary and allowances for employees, including on-air talent, whose combined salary and allowances brings them to over $200,000 annually.
The concept of reporting on employee salaries is not a new one. The salaries of members of parliament, ministers, judges, senior public servants and military officers all have their salaries publicly released. In addition, private companies, including commercial broadcasters are required to include similar information in annual reports, provided for under the Corporations Act 2001.
Gender pay issues
Enhanced transparency will also enable scrutiny of the extent to which the national broadcasters are meeting public expectations in relation to gender pay parity. The national broadcasters assert that no pay gap unfavourable to women exists within their organisations. That is to be commended. The additional transparency measures proposed by this Bill will ensure ongoing scrutiny and visibility to the Australian public of the performance of the national broadcasters in this regard.
Privacy issues
The Privacy Act 1988 provides for instances where disclosure is required under an Australian law. Where the enhanced transparency measure is legislated in the ABC Act and the SBS Act, it will enable the ABC and SBS to lawfully publish personal information (such as names) of the relevant employees and on-air talent individuals.
Privacy issues are of course a concern to those who will be affected by this amendment. I appreciate that. However, taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent for high profile employees and on air talent. These individuals occupy significant positions of public trust and so it is reasonable to expect greater transparency of the remuneration arrangements that apply to high-earning individuals at taxpayer-funded broadcasters. I expect the national broadcasters to manage these issues appropriately.
British Broadcasting Corporation
Similarly, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) publishes information in its annual report on the names of all senior executives of the BBC paid more than 150,000 pounds from licence fee revenue in that financial year. In addition, the names of all other staff of the BBC paid more than 150,000 pounds from licence fee revenue in that financial year is set out in pay bands.
Conclusion
Transparency in how Government funding is allocated and spent is of interest to the public. This obligation provides a more open and transparent view of our national broadcasters.
In addition, enhanced transparency will provide the public with visibility over how the national broadcasters are ensuring gender pay parity amongst their highest-earning employees.
The Bill is a responsible way to improve public visibility over how the national broadcasters allocate and spend the significant taxpayer funding which they receive each year.
by leave—I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 599 standing in my name for today concerning an order for the production of documents relating to a potential Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility loan.
I move:
(1) That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the historic agreement between First Nations people, the Gumatj, and Equatorial Launch Australia (ELA) which has secured land in North East Arnhem Land to establish Australia's first commercial space centre;
(b) commends the Northern Territory Government, the Gumatj, ELA and Developing East Arnhem Limited on their partnership for including the world's oldest culture in the creation of the newest technologies; and
(c) congratulates the work of the Gumatj clan and the Northern Land Council for securing a 99 year head lease for the township of Gunyangara, and the future economic opportunity and security this represents.
(2) That governments across Australia continue to work with First Nations people for the betterment of their communities and the nation as a whole.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government supports the development of northern Australia and the economic empowerment of Indigenous communities. We support these developments in North East Arnhem Land. The coalition government worked with the community to negotiate this township lease. A community-held township lease was first proposed in 2007, but no action was taken until this government was elected. The government looks forward to continuing to work with Indigenous Australians to support economic opportunities and land tenure reform.
Question agreed to.
I ask that Senator Siewert's name be added to notice of motion 647 standing in the name of Senator Polley.
It is so added.
At the request of Senator Polley and Senator Siewert, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) there are currently 413 106 Australians living with dementia, with around 244 people diagnosed with dementia each day,
(ii) more than 500 000 Australians will have dementia by 2025 and more than 1 million by 2050, and
(iii) dementia is the leading cause of death for Australian women and, within the next five years, will be the leading cause of death for all Australians;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) people living with dementia, their families and carers are significantly lonelier than the general public, and
(ii) for many of us, Christmas represents joy, happiness and time with family and loved ones, but for others it can be a very sad and lonely time; and
(c) urges all levels of Government to:
(i) keep those living with dementia, their families and carers in mind this Christmas, and
(ii) continue raising awareness of dementia within their communities so that people living with dementia and their families feel less isolated and alone.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government is strongly committed to making a difference to people living with dementia as well as their carers and their families. The government has committed $200 million over five years, to 2019, to boost Australia's research into the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure of dementia. We've also committed more than $30 million between 2012 and 2017 to projects aimed at addressing many of the recommendations of both the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing report Thinking ahead: report on the inquiry into dementia: early diagnosis and interventionand the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report Care and management of younger and older Australians living with dementia and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its most common form, heart disease, causes one-fifth of all deaths in Australia, and it affects more Australians than any other disease,
(ii) inequality is rife in CVD, with the huge impact of this disease disproportionately borne by those already facing socio-economic disadvantage, those in remote locations, women, and those with lack of access to health services and, most significantly, for Indigenous Australians, as made clear in a report earlier this year by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence to Reduce Inequality in Heart Disease, The Heart of Inequality,
(iii) an estimated 970 000 Australians (13% of 45 to 74 year olds) are at high risk of a CVD event within the next five years and many are receiving suboptimal care—heart health checks have not been incorporated well in routine general practice and Australia's performance on CVD risk reduction compares poorly with that of other countries, and
(iv) recent work by a network of leading Australian health experts and organisations, with the Australian Health Policy Collaboration, a public policy 'think tank' at Victoria University, has compiled the evidence for a national screening program for all Australians to directly reduce preventable cardiovascular disease for all and, particularly, for those groups that are most at risk; and
(b) calls on the Government to implement the recommendations of the recent report, Heart Health: the first step to Getting Australia's Health on Track, for a national screening program to be implemented as an urgent priority, comprising:
(i) a national screening program to promote uptake of the heart health screening tool, Absolute Cardiovascular Risk Assessment, through promotion, training and decision-support software for all general practices,
(ii) amendment of the current Medicare Benefits Schedule health assessment items to include Absolute Cardiovascular Risk Assessment, with a management plan for all assessed as at risk,
(iii) establishment of a target for population coverage rates, and with a national aim to achieve assessment of more than 90% of 45 to 74 year olds within five years, and
(iv) the involvement of Primary Health Networks in the support of general practices and through public annual reporting on the population assessed in their areas.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian government currently provides a range of services and support for cardiovascular disease through Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In addition, we've announced record investment of over $96 million in the National Health and Medical Research Council for cardiovascular disease and have invested $15 million in the Healthy Heart Initiative that was announced in this year's budget.
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The whole point of this motion is not for the government to be able to reiterate the funding support that it's providing to specific cardiovascular initiatives. This is specifically addressed at a prevention proposal—a proposal that would ensure that we have a cardiovascular risk screening tool that's used in much the same way as we conduct mammogram screening and in the same way as we conduct screening around cervical cancer and screening around other significant illnesses, like bowel cancer. This is a screening tool designed to apply to all Australians when they visit their primary healthcare practitioner to make sure that we prevent the emergence of complications from cardiovascular disease, not simply treat it once people have developed it.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave's granted for one minute.
In principle I actually don't mind this motion. However, I really don't have any idea of the cost of it, and that's why it doesn't meet with my support.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Wong, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 6 February 2018:
The implications of recent decisions by the Court of Disputed Returns concerning section 44 of the Constitution on questions referred by the Parliament under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, with particular reference to:
(a) the decisions in connection with the disqualification of former Senators Bob Day and Rodney Culleton;
(b) a regime for disclosing information relating to aspects other than section 44(i), for which the Parliament has already provided;
(c) the form such a process might take and how it could be implemented; and
(d) any related matters.
Question agreed to.
I inform the chamber that Senator Singh will also sponsor this motion. I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 653 standing in my name, relating to RAAF Williamtown.
Leave granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Singh, move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the 2016 Senate committee inquiry into contamination of Australia's Defence Force facilities and other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia, concluded that there were many points of failure in the Department of Defence's response to PFOS/PFOA contamination at RAAF Williamtown, and
(ii) on 19 November 2017, the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority announced that the investigation area adjacent to RAAF Williamtown, known as the "red zone", had been expanded by 50%, drawing in a further 250 households; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) coordinate urgent action to stop the continued contamination around RAAF Williamtown,
(ii) extend and improve testing regimes for blood and the surrounding environment, and
(iii) explain, by 5 February 2018, what consideration has been given to understanding and addressing any financial impacts on affected businesses and individuals.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is implementing measures both on and off site at RAAF Williamtown which address the primary exposure pathways, mitigate against further migration of PFAS from the base and reduce PFAS in the environment. Defence has installed three water treatment plants at the base, treating over 820 million litres of ground and surface water. Defence is excavating sediment from open drains to reduce migration of PFAS in surface water. The government has extended blood testing participation in the epidemiological study and access to dedicated mental health services for those who live or work, or have lived or worked, in the management area, including those affected by its recent expansion. The PFAS task force coordinated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is leading the whole-of-government response and is considering potential options to assist affected communities, including at Williamtown.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes comments made, on 5 December 2017, by the Acting Special Minister of State (Senator Cormann) that the current regulatory regime surrounding foreign donations risks the 'inappropriate foreign interference in our democratic system'; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Acting Special Minister of State, by no later than 6.30 pm on 7 December 2017, documents relating to all donations to the Liberal Party of Australia and state branches, made between 1 January 2015 and 5 December 2017, by Chinese national Ms Sally Zou or by entities owned or operated by her.
I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will be supporting this motion. I note that Labor has raised questions in the past about the close relationship between the Chinese companies of Ms Sally Zou and the South Australian Liberal Party. It has also raised concerns with Ms Zou's Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation, to which the foreign minister feigned ignorance. Labor supports real-time disclosure and has repeatedly stated it would support a disclosure regime that publishes as quickly as technology allows.
For over a year Labor has had a bill before the parliament to ban foreign donations and reverse the Howard government's changes by reducing the donations disclosure limit to a fixed $1,000. For over a year Labor has had a bill before the parliament to ban donation splitting between branches, ban the receipt of anonymous donations and link public funding to expenditure. For over a year Labor has had a bill before the parliament to introduce new offences and increased penalties for those who seek to breach these laws. It's time for this government to act. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senators Fierravanti-Wells, Pratt and Moore, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 5 December 2017, the world will observe International Volunteer Day, an opportunity for Australia to thank all our volunteers—past and present, both in Australia and overseas—for their selfless contributions to worthy causes, including Australia's aid program,
(ii) the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (the global plan to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities and tackle climate change) explicitly recognises volunteer groups as stakeholders to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
(iii) this year's theme for International Volunteer Day, 'Volunteers Act First. Here. Everywhere', is a reflection of how volunteers around the world are responding in times of crisis and supporting longer-term social and economic development, at home and abroad,
(iv) Australia has a long and proud history of volunteering, with the 2016 Census revealing that around 3.6 million Australian volunteers give their time to support local and regional communities and those in need overseas—since 1951, when our first international volunteers went to Indonesia, successive Australian Governments have supported more than 14 000 Australians to volunteer through Australia's aid program,
(v) the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper recognises the importance of Australian volunteers creating links between communities and people in our region—advancing Australia's reputation overseas,
(vi) each year, through the Government's flagship Australian Volunteers Program, over 1,000 Australians offer their time and skills to volunteer in developing countries—through this program, skilled Australian volunteers share their knowledge with people and organisations in about 25 developing countries by contributing to global economic growth and poverty reduction, and Australian volunteers are helping make our region more stable, secure and prosperous,
(vii) by helping our neighbours to be healthier, well-educated and able to make a meaningful contribution to the economy, support for Australian volunteers across successive governments ensures less reliance on aid in the future, and
(viii) Australian volunteers give a lot to their host communities but they also receive a lot in return—Australian volunteers increase their understanding of our region and bring new knowledge, skills and relationships back to Australia—these life-long personal and professional relationships are building strength and diversity in Australia's connections to the world; and
(b) recognises:
(i) United Nations (UN) resolution, Integrating volunteering into peace and development: the plan of action for the next decade and beyond, adopted in November 2015 by consensus by the UN General Assembly, which recognises that volunteering can be a powerful means of implementation for the SDGs,
(ii) that, through Australia's aid program, Australian volunteers play a valuable part in contributing to regional development and stability, and
(iii) the strong commitment from Australian volunteers, business, government and non-government organisations to support volunteers to share our culture, our values and our multicultural way of life with the world.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Di Natale, move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are the First Peoples of these lands and waters;
(b) recognises that 26 January is considered a day of mourning for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as it represents the beginning of colonisation;
(c) acknowledges the growing calls from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and organisations, local governments and the community to change the date;
(d) urges all Australians to respectfully engage in conversations about changing the date of Australia Day; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to engage and consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples about changing the date of Australia Day, so that all Australians can participate in celebrating this national day.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now: the coalition government will never, ever change the date of Australia Day. The coalition government unequivocally supports Australia Day being held on 26 January each year, as do the overwhelming majority of Australian people.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will not be supporting this motion. Labor support Australia Day and we have no plans to change it. We understand the importance of a national day and we know that many Australians take pride in Australia Day. But we also understand that for many, including many Indigenous Australians, Australia Day is a day which represents a history of dispossessing and suffering. We cannot ignore that and we will not ignore that. But we will not engage in the silly political games of the Greens, attempting to make a political plaything out of reconciliation.
Labor supports a process of truth telling as part of our nation's healing. It is why the Leader of the Opposition has expressed support for the recommendations of the Referendum Council which call for a Makarrata Commission to oversee the process of truth telling and agreement making. It is why we are focused on closing the gap. It is disappointing that the Greens are so focused on these issues and not on jobs, health care and education. Rather than playing silly games about councils and radio stations, Labor is focusing on the work that needs to be done to progress a meaningful process of engagement with Indigenous Australians.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
It's very dangerous to say 'never ever'. To the government and to the opposition: we know the date will change. It's a question of when. And then you lot will claim it as your own, just like you have with marriage equality and just like you have with a banking royal commission. All of a sudden, it will be Labor's idea. We will bookmark this day. The date will change. It is a question of when. The Australian community are increasingly engaging with this debate. They know that this is a day of grieving for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The date will change so that everybody in this country can enjoy Australia and celebrate Australia, not on a day that harms and causes distress to a large proportion of Australian people.
The question is that notice of motion No. 652 be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator McKim, move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that 10 December 2017 is Human Rights Day which represents the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly which established the equal dignity and worth of every person;
(b) recognises that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents a milestone document in the history of human rights which proclaimed the inalienable rights that everyone is inherently entitled to as a human being, regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status;
(c) observes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by representatives of diverse legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world and sets out universal values and a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations;
(d) notes that:
(i) children, as well as adults, have human rights and children also have the right to special protection because of their vulnerability to exploitation and abuse,
(ii) December also commemorates Australia's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990, and
(iii) Australia's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child means that Australia has a duty to ensure that all children in its care enjoy the rights set out in the treaty;
(e) further notes that:
(i) it has been over three years since the publication of 'The Forgotten Children' report—the report revealed that the prolonged, mandatory detention of asylum seeker children causes them significant mental and physical illness and developmental delays,
(ii) at the time of the report's publication there were 132 children in detention in Nauru and 39 children remain in detention in Nauru, according to the Government's statistics, published on 31 October 2017,
(iii) section 4AA(1) of the Migration Act 1958 explicitly states that 'a minor shall only be detained as a measure of last resort', and
(iv) whilst the Government has reduced the number of children in detention, the fact that children remain in detention in unacceptable; and
(f) calls on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to end the prolonged and mandatory detention of asylum seeker children in Nauru.
by leave—I move the amendment circulated in the chamber:
Omit paragraphs (e) and (f), substitute:
(e) further notes that:
(i) it has been over three years since the publication of The Forgotten Children report. The report revealed that the prolonged, mandatory detention of asylum seeker children causes them significant mental and physical illness and developmental delays, and
(ii) refugee children should not be detained in offshore processing centres for prolonged periods and should be resettled in third countries as soon as possible; and
(f) calls on the Turnbull Government to immediately accept New Zealand's offer to resettle refugees from Manus Island and Nauru and begin negotiating appropriate conditions, similar to the United States refugee resettlement agreement, to ensure people smugglers do not exploit vulnerable people and eligible refugees, particularly women and children, are resettled in third countries as soon as possible.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government does not support this motion. The motion has no basis in fact. There are no children in detention in Nauru. The coalition government is very proud of the fact that we removed all children from detention. It is worth remembering that 8,000 children were detained because of the disastrous border protection policies of Labor and the Greens in government. It is also worth remembering that 1,200 men, women and children drowned at sea under the policies of Labor and the Greens. The coalition government's strong and consistent border protection policies have saved lives, and they will not be changing.
The question is that motion, as amended, be agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 643 standing in my name for today, in the terms circulated in the chamber, concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the radioactive waste management facility at Kimba.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) in 2015, the Government commenced consultation with the local community of Kimba in South Australia on whether the town might host a radioactive waste management facility, in order to ascertain if there was 'broad community support';
(b) in an early 2016 vote on the issue, the community was shown to be split down the middle – 51% in favour to 49% against;
(c) a late 2016 vote was then held, where the numbers changed slightly to 56% in favour to 41% against;
(d) on 22 March 2017, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, responding to a question from then Senator Xenophon on the meaning of 'broad community support', advised the Senate that the Government had taken a proposal forward in the Hawker region in South Australia where support was at 65%;
(e) the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia further advised that, while the Government has not put a definitive figure on what constitutes 'broad community support', the Government would need a figure in the range of the support received in Hawker;
(f) Kimba voted a third time in July this year, with a total of 88% of the community voting – the results have come in at 57% for and 43% against;
(g) at no stage has the 65% 'broad community support' criteria the Government set itself been reached; and
(h) on 27 June 2017, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia announced that two proposed sites for a radioactive waste management facility at Kimba will proceed to the next phase of assessment.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, by no later than 3.30 pm on 7 December 2017, a definition of the decision criteria 'broad community support' and all information used by him to determine that proceeding to the next phase of assessment for the two proposed sites for a radioactive waste management facility at Kimba had 'broad community support'.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The decision to progress the site to phase 2 is based on the responsible minister's assessment of whether broad community support exists. There is no specified threshold for support, as this motion asserts. Broad community support includes a consideration by the minister of a range of stakeholders' views, including those of the general community, traditional owners, businesses and adjacent neighbours. Information regarding the decision to proceed to the next phase of assessment for the two proposed sites for a radioactive waste management facility at Kimba is available on the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility's website.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion flows from a constituent who tried and failed to get access to the formal definition the government has used for the term 'broad community support' using the freedom of information laws. The government has refused to provide her with that definition. The government is seeking to withhold from her a critical definition that they used in a decision that was about her and, supposedly, for her. She wasn't asking for instructions on how to fire a missile from one of our Navy ships or for details on the latest operations of our security services—no. She just wanted the definition of 'broad community support'. I urge the chamber to support this motion.
The question is that notice of motion No. 643, as amend, be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Hinch, move:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 September 2018:
The need for regulation of mobility scooters, also known as motorised wheelchairs, including:
(a) the number of deaths and injuries attributed to accidents involving mobility scooters in Australia since their introduction;
(b) the causes of these accidents;
(c) any current regulations governing the use of mobility scooters throughout Australia;
(d) comparison of Australian regulations with international standards;
(e) what support structures are in place to ensure the safe operation of mobility scooters;
(f) the regulatory role of government and non-government bodies; and
(g) any related matter.
I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
From 2000 to 2010, Monash University has kept statistics on the number of accidents involving mobility scooters, commonly known as gophers. In Australia, 62 people were killed and 442 people were hospitalised in those 10 years. Of course, it was very public when my wife got hit by one. She is very good, and I'm pleased about that. Mrs Nicholson from Ballina contacted us. She was walking down the street in Ballina and got hit from behind by a mobility scooter. She had multiple fractures to both legs, spent four months in hospital and has never recovered properly. That is only one incident; there have been many more. They're an essential item for the elderly and frail. I have no desire to ban them, but I think we need to have a good look at this and see what we can do to make it safer for all Australians in the future.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
On the ABC this afternoon I was asked about this. I was asked, 'Are you here to vilify old people?' I said, 'Not at all. I wear a knee brace and may need one of these things at some stage.' The reason that I am co-sponsoring this motion is that the mother of one of my staff ended up in hospital with bad hip injuries because her partner—inadvertently, I hasten to add—ran her over in one of these motorised scooters. He was in his 80s, legally blind and still driving it. The weight and speed of these things should be checked out. They need to be made safer not only for partners but also for the people riding them.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in the names of Senators Fawcett, Hanson-Young and Griff, proposing a reference to the Education and Employment References Committee, in the terms circulated in the chamber.
Leave granted.
At the request of Senators Fawcett, Hanson-Young and Griff, I move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2018:
(a) the failures in TAFE SA that have resulted in suspension of courses, as well as quality issues with the provision of training;
(b) the effective use by the South Australian Labor Government of $771 million provided over six years from the Federal Government to support vocational education and training in South Australia;
(c) the impact of the South Australian Government’s $91 million in funding cuts over five years on students, industry and the broader community;
(d) the role and impact of the scrapped Skills for All policy, and its replacement WorkReady policy;
(e) the impact and frequency of changes made by the South Australian Government to their Training Subsidy List;
(f) the adequacy of the oversight of TAFE SA by its leadership, board and the South Australian Government, as well as national regulatory oversight by the Australian Skills Quality Authority and other agencies; and
(g) any other relevant matters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The South Australian Labor government's TAFE SA has twice been audited by government regulatory authorities in 2017. Both times there have been major issues identified with inappropriate training and noncompliance, overseen by TAFE SA. This has left students exposed and threatens the reputation of the vocational education and training sector in South Australia.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor opposes this proposition. This is an overt attack on the South Australian government. The government would know that the South Australian minister, Susan Close, has already announced that there will be an independent review of TAFE SA. It's no coincidence that Senator Fawcett wants a reporting date two weeks before the South Australian election. If the government really cared about a quality TAFE and VET system, they'd be responding to the abject failure of the competitive training market. They'd be investigating the for-profit education giants like Careers Australia, the company that pocketed $600 million in government-funded student loans and was graduating less than 20 per cent of their students—the same RTO that paid out $40 million to shareholders, and a year later put 1,000 staff out of work and left at least 15,000 students stranded.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian Greens will be supporting this motion and this inquiry. What has happened in South Australia and in the TAFE system has been a total disgrace. Eight hundred students are now having to consider whether they start their courses all over again—because they didn't even have trained people training them! That is the disgrace and the scandal that has been unfolding in South Australia. The state Labor government cut $91 million from TAFE SA, and they wonder why on earth things have fallen over. It's a disgrace. This inquiry will do something to shed some light on it, but let me put on the record now: the Liberal Party, federally and across the country in state governments, also have a lot to answer for.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) commends the Prime Minister and the Government for talking about the need for income tax relief for middle-income earners affected by bracket creep; and
(b) encourages the Government to propose relief for bracket creep—either in the Mid-Year Budget Review or in the 2018-19 Budget—and bring a bill to that effect to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government is focused on keeping more money in the pockets of hardworking Australians, while maintaining our trajectory back to budget balance.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 645 standing in my name for today, relating to the statement by Senator Cash.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes the claim for public interest immunity that the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) has made relating to matters concerning the raid by the Australian Federal Police on the offices of the Australian Workers Union;
(b) further notes that Odgers' Australian Senate Practice states that 'for this ground to be invoked it should be established that there are investigations in progress by a law enforcement agency, such as the police, and the provision of the information sought could interfere with those investigations' and 'this is a matter for the law enforcement agency concerned to assess, this ground should normally be raised directly by the law enforcement agency, not by some other official who can merely speculate about the relationship of the information to the investigation';
(c)notes the Minister for Employment also asserted that it was not possible to provide answers to questions on the basis of the sub judice convention;
(d)further notes that Odgers' Australian Senate Practice states that 'the sub judice convention applies to proceedings in committees, but not so as to prevent an inquiry which the Senate has directed' and that it 'is a restriction on debate which the Senate imposes upon itself, whereby debate is avoided which could involve a substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before a court, unless the Senate considers that there is an overriding requirement for the Senate to discuss a matter of public interest';
(e)reaffirms the values contained in section 10 of the Public Service Act 1999, in particular subsection (5) concerning impartiality, which states that 'The APS is apolitical and provides the Government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence'.
(2) That the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) be required to attend the Senate at 9.30 am on Thursday, 7 December 2017 to make a statement of not more than 20 minutes, addressing:
(a) why the Senate should accept the Minister's claims of public interest immunity and sub judice; and
(b) her competence to administer her portfolio responsibilities given:
(i) she has presided over the resignation of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (Mr Hadgkiss) for breaching the law he was supposed to uphold,
(ii) she has presided over the resignation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission Deputy Commissioner (Mr Southall) in order 'to totally disassociate himself from the conduct of Mr Hadgkiss',
(iii) there are questions over whether without a proper assessment of the grounds for his defence, the Minister approved taxpayers paying almost half a million dollars for Mr Hadgkiss to drag out his defence for more than 12 months before admitting breaching the Fair Work Act, and
(iv) she has lost an adviser for leaking a federal police investigation to the media, which has resulted in an Australian Federal Police investigation into her office's conduct.
(3) That any senator may move a motion to take note of the Minister for Employment's statement and any such motion may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all other government business until determined.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The minister has answered hours of questioning about this matter through the Senate estimates process and has outlined the events in question in detail.
Question agreed to.
Is this the motion that mentions both Mr Whitlam and Mr Howard in a relatively favourable light?
You can seek leave to inform the Senate further, but I'm sure senators can refer to their Notice Paper, Senator Bernardi.
Thank you, Mr President. That's indeed what it does. I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 5 December 2017 marked the 45th anniversary of the swearing-in of the first Whitlam Labor Government;
(b) also notes that spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product:
(i) soon after Mr Whitlam's swearing-in, rocketed from 18.9% that financial year to 24.3% the year Mr Whitlam left office in 1975,
(ii) had been reduced to lower than that level when the Howard Government left office in 2007, and
(iii) now sits at higher levels than when Mr Whitlam left office, at a budgeted 25.2%, and projected to remain at a similar level into forward estimates; and
(c) expresses its in-principle support for legislative measures that will help chart a pathway to budget surplus achieved by reducing spending and waste, not by increasing taxes.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
When the coalition government was elected, spending as a share of the economy was rising to 26.5 per cent of GDP. In 2017-18, it is estimated to be 25.2 per cent and will fall to 25 per cent over the forward estimates. Average real growth in spending under this coalition government is lower than the average of each of the previous five governments, extending back almost 50 years. The coalition government has achieved this and is on track to achieve budget balance, in spite of Labor's resistance to sensible budget repair measures.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 642 standing in my name for today concerning Don Burke and his relationship with Mr Barnaby Joyce.
I'm not aware of an amendment having been circulated.
It's simply a change sought by the government to the date of the order for production of documents from 7 December to 8 December. It is at the request of the government.
So paragraph (c) is to be amended from '7 December' to '8 December'?
That is correct.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) in December 2016, the celebrity gardener Mr Don Burke appeared in a Facebook video with the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Joyce), discussing favourably the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to the Minister's electorate, and
(ii) this video is no longer available;
(b) the Senate further notes that:
(i) allegations of long-term sexual harassment and abuse against prominent identities raise serious concerns about the culture of silence that has been allowed to prosper in the media industry,
(ii) the decision of any Government minister to associate with media identities facing multiple allegations of sexual harassment and abuse would call into question their capacity to responsibly execute their ministerial responsibilities,
(iii) scrubbing one's social media of references to figures facing allegations of sexual harassment and abuse would represent an acknowledgement that the association was inappropriate in the first place, and
(iv) any member of the Government who chooses to associate with a figure whose alleged behaviour was, to quote one report, 'an open secret for years', cannot, for their own benefit, pick and choose when to withdraw that association; and
(c) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 6.30 pm on 8 December 2017:
(i) any documents produced by, with, or featuring celebrity gardener Mr Burke from 1 November 2016,
(ii) any advice provided to the Minister by the Department relating to social media featuring Mr Burke since 1 November 2016 and prior to 4 December 2017,
(iii) any documents relating to social media featuring the Minister and Mr Burke since 1 November 2016 and prior to 4 December 2017, and
(iv) any related documents.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Allegations of sexual harassment and abuse are serious. Neither the minister nor the department was aware of allegations about Don Burke before recent media reports. Making unfounded and incorrect assertions about ministers is disrespectful. The government agrees to table documents from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources for the period between 1 November 2016 and prior to 4 December 2017 by 5 pm on 8 December as follows: (a) documents produced by, with or featuring Don Burke; (b) advice provided to the minister by the department relating to social media featuring Don Burke; (c) documents relating to social media featuring the minister and Don Burke.
I would like to foreshadow that the opposition will seek to have the vote on this motion split. We would like to vote on paragraphs (a) and (b) together and separate paragraph (c) of this motion. I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor does support the call in the motion to have the documents relating to the interactions between the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Mr Don Burke released. I do understand that these documents can and will be provided by the government by 6.30 pm on 8 December; however, it is important that the part of this motion that deals with the order for production of documents passes and compels the minister to follow through on this agreement. While Labor does not and will never defend gender based discrimination, harassment, abuse and assault, a summary motion in the Senate is not an appropriate way to deal with these matters—not for victims, not for reformers and certainly not as a means to respond to perpetrators.
I'll separate the motion as requested by Senator Chisholm. The question is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of motion No. 642 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
The question now is that paragraph (c), as amended, of motion No. 642 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I table and present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 137th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held at St Petersburg in the Russian Federation on 14 October to 18 October. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
In speaking to this report, I thank the secretariat, who accompanied the delegation to St Petersburg in October. I also should acknowledge my co-delegates, Senator Ketter and Mr Josh Wilson, both of whom made significant contributions to the assembly in St Petersburg. The assembly comprised some 829 parliamentarians from all over the world from some 155 member countries, including 146 presiding or deputy presiding officers. Unfortunately, our presiding officers could not be there because parliament was sitting in Australia, so I had the honour of leading the delegation.
It's a real privilege and an honour for Australian parliamentarians to be at these conferences. You do come away realising just how very lucky we are to live in a country like Australia which has rule of law. Some of the delegates who spoke at the conference gave the impression that they didn't know whether, when they got off the plane when they got home, they would be thrown in jail. Some of the challenges under which parliamentarians around the world work is a real eye opener to those of us in Australia who understand a civilised country that follows the rule of law.
There were a number of general debates. The topic of the general debate was promoting cultural pluralism and peace through interfaith and interethnic dialogue, which both Senator Ketter and I spoke to. I might say that Senator Ketter, in his typical approach to these sorts of things, was forthright and honest. He gave a very clear exposition of his view on that—and, I might say, it was Australia's view as well. It wasn't a view that might have been universally accepted.
There was a motion on the problems in Myanmar, particularly as they relate to the Rohingya people. This was the urgency motion selected by the assembly to deal with. A number of urgency motions were put forward, all of which were quite important, but it was the one on Myanmar that achieved the support needed to make it the urgency debate. I was nominated to the drafting committee of that motion. It was a motion promoted by a number of countries, including Morocco, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Kuwait, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sudan and Turkey. They all had individual motions but agreed to join them. The drafting committee then had to try and bring the motion to something that might achieve support across the assembly, which it did.
The Australian delegation took the opportunity while we were in St Petersburg to have bilateral meetings with the Republic of Belarus and with Singapore. The latter was particularly related to the strategic partnership between Australia and Singapore and, as far as I was concerned, particularly the expansion of the training of Singapore troops in Australia at Rockhampton and Townsville. We also had a meeting with the delegation from Israel. Interestingly, the young lady from the Knesset who spoke to us and who was part of the Israeli delegation was until a couple of years previously an Australian citizen and had spent most of her life in Australia. She'd returned to Israel and got herself elected—
Order! Senator Macdonald, your time has actually expired.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present Delegated Legislation Monitor 16 of 2017 of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
Ordered that the report be printed.
On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Annual report 2014-15, Annual report 2015-16 and Report 13 of 2017: Human rights scrutiny report.
Ordered that the reports be printed.
I seek leave to have the tabling statements incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statements read as follows—
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS - SENATE TABLING STATEMENT - WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2017
I rise to speak to the tabling of one Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' scrutiny report and two annual reports.
The committee examines bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In doing so, the committee aims to enhance understanding of, and respect for, human rights in Australia and ensure that human rights issues are appropriately considered in legislative and policy development.
Members of scrutiny committees, including this committee, may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation. The report does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures but rather seeks to provide parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation. Committee members performing this scrutiny function are not bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports.
Scrutiny Report 13 contains assessments of legislative instruments received between 13 October and 2 November, as well as bills and instruments previously deferred. The committee is seeking further information in relation to three bills and instruments, and has provided an 'advice only' assessment of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, on which debate commenced in the other place this week.
The report also contains the committee's concluded examination of two bills:
Annual Reports 2014-15 and 2015-16
I also speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Annual Reports for 2014-15 and 2015-16. These reports provide information about the work of the committee during the respective reporting periods, including the major themes and scrutiny issues arising from the legislation examined by the committee.
In the 2014-15 financial year, the committee tabled 16 scrutiny reports, assessing a total of 240 bills and Acts and 1,958 legislative instruments. Of the bills considered in this period, the majority — 161 — were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights.
In the 2015-16 financial year, the committee tabled 14 scrutiny reports, examining 192 bills and Acts and 1,948 legislative instruments. The committee also tabled one inquiry report during the period — the 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures which contained seven recommendations aimed at improving the human rights compatibility of the legislation considered as part of the inquiry.
I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's annual reports to better inform their consideration of the committee's work during the relevant periods.
End of year statement
Finally, I would like to provide an end of year snapshot of the committee's significant work since the 45th Parliament commenced in August 2016.
The committee has tabled 17 scrutiny reports in the 45th Parliament thus far, including 13 this year. The committee also tabled its Freedom of Speech in Australia inquiry report on 28 February 2017.
In this period, the committee examined a considerable volume of legislation – 405 bills and 2,942 instruments. Of these, 309 bills and 2,875 instruments were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights.
The committee requested further information from the relevant legislation proponent in relation to 89 bills and instruments. In a number of cases, following correspondence with the legislation proponent and the provision of further information, the committee was able to conclude that the legislation in question was likely to be compatible with human rights.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 13 of 2017; Annual Report 2014-15; and Annual Report 2015-16 to the Senate.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the annual reports of the committee.
Over the period covered by these annual reports we've seen a massive expansion in the powers of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton, as he continues to oversee the oppressive regimes of offshore detention on Manus Island and Nauru—and these are unconscionable regimes. We can see the banality of these regimes in some of the disgraceful leaking of so-called information against Mr Abdul Aziz Adam. Aziz is a genuine refugee who has been detained for 4½ years on Manus Island. He is a man who has suffered immeasurably, as have many, many hundreds of other detainees on Manus Island and Nauru, because of the actions of Mr Dutton and his Liberal and Labor predecessors.
Aziz had the audacity to ask a question on the ABC's Q&A earlier this week, and, for having had the audacity to publicly ask why he has not been given the protection that Australia legally owes him, in revenge, the office of the immigration minister leaked so-called information about Aziz to the Australian. Unfortunately, the article was based on false premises and false information leaked by the minister's office. Firstly, the article described Aziz as an asylum seeker. That is not correct. He's actually a refugee and has been found to be a refugee by the PNG government. Secondly, and more seriously, it claimed that Aziz has not applied for US resettlement. This is false. He has applied for resettlement to the US. The article also claimed, on the basis of information provided from Mr Dutton's office, that Aziz has been involved in a specific number of protests in the Manus Island detention centre. I have no doubt that's true. In fact, I've been involved, sitting next to Aziz, in a protest myself inside the Manus Island detention centre.
What this shows is that Mr Dutton's spooks are watching every move that these men make, because they still have absolute control over what is going on on Manus Island and Nauru. They are counting how many protests refugees go to, they are counting what actions refugees take at those protests and they are documenting every action that the refugees take. I say to Mr Dutton: instead of spying on these innocent people and maliciously leaking against them to your favourite pamphlet—the unofficial sponsor of the Cronulla riots in this country, The Australian newspaper—how about treating these people like the human beings that they are; respecting the legal rights that they have, which we have signed up under international law to abide by; and resettling them and bringing them to freedom and safety, which we should have done years ago?
As we stand here today, the cruelty of this government has reached ever higher levels because Mr Dutton is, as we stand here, forcibly separating a man from his family and putting this man—and I spoke about this in the adjournment debate last night; Arash is a refugee on Nauru—in a position that none of us in this chamber would ever want to be in. I hope that none of us are ever in this position where we're forced to choose between a shot at freedom and the chance to hold our baby daughter in our arms for the very first time. That is the situation that this government is placing Arash in. There are plenty of Liberal and National senators in this place who pontificate and lecture the rest of the country about how much they care about family values—what rot. If they cared about family values, they wouldn't be trying to smash up this family and deny this man a chance to hold his beautiful baby daughter in his arms for the very first time.
I say to those opposite: you don't care about his family, you don't care about his wife and you don't care about his daughter. You only care about your political game. That's all you care about. So don't come in here and start giving us lectures about how much you care about families. I do not believe you; I do not believe any one of you. If you cared about families, you wouldn't be doing this. You've covered up and you've played down reports of abuse, including the sexual abuse of children and the neglect of children. You've covered them up time after time after time.
Get off your soap box!
I don't care how much Senator McGrath wants to lose control of himself.
You're the one losing control.
Senator McGrath, I can't hear what Senator McKim is saying, so keep your interjections to a minimum.
They have covered up and played down allegations of child abuse, including child sexual abuse. They have ignored the pleas of doctors who've sought to properly care for people who've been broken under the orders of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in this place. Both Labor and Liberal have the blood of innocent people on their hands because of the punitive, disgusting and disgraceful policies that they've put in place around offshore detention.
Senator McGrath, you have a point of order?
I have a point of order. I would ask that he withdraw that we have blood on our hands.
Senator McKim, I would ask that you withdraw that statement.
I do not believe that it's unparliamentary, and I will not withdraw it.
Senator McGrath?
I would ask—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—that he does withdraw it, because it does reflect upon the Labor Party and the Liberal Party to say that we have blood on our hands. That is a direct reflection upon senators in this chamber.
Senator McKim, I would ask you to because it does reflect very poorly and I think it is very unparliamentary—that is, the accusations that are behind that on senators on both sides of this chamber. I would ask you withdraw those reflections or perhaps clarify them in a less pejorative way.
The simple fact is that they do have blood on their hands. People have died as a result of the policies of the Labor and Liberal parties, and I stand by that comment—
Senator Whish-Wilson, do you have a point of order?
I have a point of order. Could I suggest that you take away and reflect on the Hansard and make a decision based on that reflection?
I will, but I'll provide Senator McKim one further opportunity to perhaps clarify what he actually meant by that statement before I adopt Senator Whish-Wilson's suggestion.
I'm happy to clarify because I do respect the chair. By that comment, I'm saying they are directly responsible for the death of human beings. That's what I'm saying.
Senator Whish-Wilson, thank you. I will take that away and reflect on the Hansard and will get back through the President if required.
Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The Labor and Liberal parties have shown their willingness to not only torture people—that is, to deliberately harm people in order to coerce outcomes out of another group of people entirely; they're basically acting like the old-style medieval cities that impaled corpses on the walls to try and dissuade other desperate people from seeking entry into those cities. That is exactly what they're doing with living human beings on Manus Island and Nauru: they are treating them in a way that they know will cause deliberate and significant harm, and they are doing it in order to dissuade other people from taking certain actions. I do not recognise my country when I talk about these matters.
The terrible tragedy of this situation is that most of this cruelty would be so much harder for the government to do if the Labor Party would actually show the slightest sign of standing up against it. I want to go on the record here and say that, in years to come, there will be a royal commission into the way we've treated these people on Manus Island and Nauru. Reparations will be made, apologies will be made and blame will be apportioned, and the blame will be apportioned to the Labor, Liberal and National parties in this place and to other senators in this place who've supported them in lock step every step of the way. When that day comes, I hope that the people that you have treated so appallingly on Manus Island and Nauru can take small solace from that. It will only be small because their lives will still have been damaged and some of them will still be dead because of what you have done to them. You will be held to account in the same way that, I hope, the Catholic Church will be held to account for what it's done. If you can't stand up and demand a stop to what, I believe, is early-onset fascism—reflected in the actions of the Labor and Liberal parties on Manus Island and Nauru and policy settings around that, and in the way that the minister currently responds to circumstances, such as Arash's where he is deliberately trying to use a denial of access to the US resettlement deal in order to coerce Arash's wife and baby daughter back to Nauru—then you are a party to that abuse. It is as simple as that. So let's actually stand together. Let's demand better from the government and let's demand better from the minister. If you don't, you will be remembered by history as collaborators to torture.
That presentation from a disgusting excuse for an Australian should be called out.
Senator Whish-Wilson, you have a point of order?
I have a point of order. It's totally unparliamentary to reflect on Senator McKim like that.
Considering what he said in his speech—
Senator McGrath, you are not helping.
Senator Macdonald has been here for long enough to know that that's totally unacceptable. I ask him to withdraw that.
I will ask Senator Macdonald to withdraw that. He might like to find a different turn of phrase.
I withdraw, Madam Deputy President, in deference to your ruling, unlike the Greens political party, which are full of hypocrisy. They have just demonstrated this with that point of order. It's okay for Senator McKim to accuse other senators in this chamber of 'blood on their hands', but, when I call him an 'excuse for an Australian', they immediately take a point of order. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
If people are interested in this debate—and I suspect that, apart from the five of them sitting over that side, nobody is—the people who were genuinely responsible for deaths were the Labor Party and the Greens political party, who supported the Labor Party at the time when they were encouraging criminal people smugglers to bring people illegally into this country. These were not poor refugees. These were wealthy people who were paying a large sum of money to fly to Indonesia and then paying criminal people smugglers $15,000 per person to smuggle them illegally across to Australia. And this illegal activity was then, and is now, being supported by the Greens political party. I often wonder what sorts of kickbacks there may have been to the Greens political party from the people smugglers, or others, who were making a fortune out of this vile criminal activity.
We know there is one political party that does have blood on its hands, and that is the political party that supported the then government and caused the known deaths of some 1,200 people. We suspect that there were many thousands more, but there were known deaths of at least 1,200 men, women and children, which never raised a concern from the Greens political party. They just accepted that, because their mates in the Labor Party were in government. They were encouraging them. The Greens were keeping them in power. We know there were 1,200 deaths.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I have the honour of chairing the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but the misfortune to have to put up with the sorts of lies you have heard in this chamber just recently from another senator, the absolute and abject mistruths about what is happening on Manus and Nauru. These were arrangements—I might remind anyone who is interested—that were put in place by the former Labor government, with the support of the coalition, because it was really reinstating the policies that the Howard government had put in place over a period of time that had stopped the flow of illegal immigrants into Australia. The Howard government had done that. The Labor Party came to power, opened up the floodgates, caused the deaths of at least 1,200 people and had over 2,000 children in detention—and you never heard a whimper from the Greens, because it was their mates in the Labor Party who did it.
The government changed, and what happened? We stopped the deaths at sea. No longer were people losing their lives because of the actions of the Greens political party and the previous Labor Party government. But the Labor Party government put these people into Manus and Nauru, and the Greens political party supported it at the time, because their mates in the Labor Party were the ones doing it. Fortunately Mr Rudd, in his second term as Prime Minister, started the process of stopping the boats. It's a process that the coalition government has continued. I'm proud to say it has been literally years now since we've had any illegal immigrants into Australia or any deaths at sea. The Greens are so concerned about deaths, but they never whimpered about the 1,200 people who we know were killed as a result of these policies. Because I'm chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, this argument comes up all the time, first of all by Senator Hanson—she would always burst into tears at the appropriate time—
Senator Macdonald, I have not been in your committee, but have you got the right senator? I can feel the vibe coming from Senator Hanson!
I meant Senator Hanson-Young, I'm sorry. My apologies, Senator Hanson. Should I ever equate with you Senator Hanson-Young deliberately, I will cut my wrists. I would never do that; I would never insult you in that way. But we first of all had Senator Hanson-Young bursting into tears at the appropriate time in every speech she made, but at least she was better than their current spokesman, Senator McKim, who barely can be represented as an Australian. He says he does not recognise his country when we're talking about this. I say to Senator McKim: your country would not want to recognise you, and perhaps you should go back to the place of your birth.
We have been through this time and time again. Everything we have heard from Senator McKim is a fabrication. This accusation of torture might excite a few of the GetUp! people and a few of the Greens political party's few members, but most Australians know that is a positive and deliberate lie. There is no torture there. In fact, if we talk just for a moment about Manus, I happened to be up in PNG and speaking to the local member for Manus in the PNG parliament. It is a sovereign country, and I understand what's happening there. This particular centre was shut down on the orders of the PNG supreme court, which the Greens political party applauded. They applauded the fact that the PNG supreme court had ordered this centre to be shut down.
It was shut down and three alternative places of accommodation were built. I tell you, it was better accommodation than most Australians living outside of the capital cities have. It had all the food, all the clothing, all the support and all the air-conditioning as the other centres on Manus. Those in that centre, which the supreme court said must be shut down, were free to go to any of these other centres where they would be properly cared for, yet Senator McKim calls this torture.
On Nauru, again, these are not people who were invited to Australia. They're not poor refugees. They are wealthy people trying to get into the promised land, the land promised by the people smugglers, which continues to be promised by a group of lawyers and the Greens political party in Australia. Keep on encouraging these people and giving them false hope that they will again one day be able to come illegally into Australia.
Australia has a great reputation for accepting genuine refugees. In fact, per capita, I think Australia is No. 2 or No. 3 in the world in generosity for accepting genuine refugees into this country, who we look after, as we should. Australia has nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to our concern for and helping of genuine refugees. These people in Nauru and Manus can leave at any time they like. Those who have been determined by the UNHCR to be genuine refugees can go to the United States or other countries or they can return home. We have examples of certain refugees who claim they would be murdered if they went home. We have examples, not in Manus or Nauru but in Australia, of them going back on holidays to the country that they claim they can't return to because they'll be put to death. Now, Madam Acting Deputy President, this debate—
Senator Macdonald, I know you're passionate in your defence, but Madam Acting Deputy President left.
Oh, sorry.
I know I've been accused of a few things lately, but I'm still a bloke!
I'm sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. As you know, that is a slip of the tongue. I do get very passionate when I hear the lies told about our country, our officials and our public dollars when you hear the Greens political party. (Time expired)
I seek leave to continue my remarks on this report later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the Scrutiny Digest No. 15 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the impacts of climate change on marine fisheries and biodiversity, 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.
I replaced one of my heroes in this place, Bob Brown. One of the reasons I convinced the Greens that they should preselect me in his place was that I felt that the world's oceans, and Australia's oceans, needed more focus in parliament. They needed a party and a senator who would stand up for the world's oceans and for healthy oceans. I'm pleased to table this report today. It's the sixth Senate inquiry, in the five years that I've been here, that I've initiated into the health of our oceans, and it's the second Senate inquiry that I've chaired. It's been a great privilege to have been in the position where I've had all these resources at my fingertips. And I will say I've had good people to work with on the Senate committee. We've managed to write such a comprehensive report on, arguably, one of the greatest catastrophes that we're facing on the planet at this point in time. I'd like to quote another hero of mine, Sir David Attenborough, who's very shortly going to be releasing his movie, Blue Planet II. He says:
The world's oceans are under the greatest threat in history.
His documentary will lay bare the shocking damage that humanity is doing to the ocean.
Climate change, through rising global emissions, is warming our oceans. If you're listening to this speech and you get this report, you can go to the additional comments that the Greens have made at the end of the report. I say that I would have liked this report to have been called 'Warming oceans: the canary in the coalmine'. Unfortunately, I couldn't get agreement from the committee to go with that title. But that's the key point that I'd like to make here today: the oceans are where we're seeing the visible impacts of climate change now. We have bushfires, floods, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, deforestation and other issues we deal with in our terrestrial ecosystems. But what's going on in the oceans now, beneath the surface of the sea? We are seeing direct, tangible impacts of our changing climate, and it's very disturbing.
The reason I wanted to use the word 'coalmine' is that we know absolutely that the burning of fossil fuels and our obsession with coal is contributing to this. The committee visited Queensland. We had two hearings in Queensland. One was in Cairns—and Senator Hanson's here—where I also visited and dived on the reef, but I did pay for that myself. We also had a hearing in Townsville, where we heard from a number of experts. I dare anyone who doesn't believe in climate change to go there and stick their head under the water. They'll see what I saw. I went out there with a scientist who explained it to me. It was a very emotional day for me. I dived on the reef with my kids nearly five years ago, and I could see the changes in just those five years. We've had two totally unprecedented and unpredicted back-to-back coral bleaching events. They have been absolutely devastating. The tourism operators who took me out there were quite open about their concerns. In fact, their view is that, basically, this is last-chance tourism now. They have almost lost faith that we can do anything to reverse the changes that they are seeing on the Great Barrier Reef.
But I would like to step back a little bit further than that. That's not actually what led me to initiate this inquiry. It was changes in my own state that led me to initiate this inquiry. In the same years that we saw back-to-back bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, we saw unprecedented warming in the oceans off Tasmania. The area from Tasmania across to New Zealand and in south-eastern Australia is now recognised globally as the canary in the coalmine for warming ocean impacts. In the last two weeks, while we were writing this report, another heatwave even bigger than the events of 2015-16 has hit the coast of Tasmania. Let me tell you about those 2015-16 events. We've lost our giant kelp forests, an ecosystem that has been there for 10,000 years—longer than the Great Barrier Reef. Those giant kelp forests are nurseries for fisheries like rock lobster and abalone. They're gone. That heatwave event wiped them out. And it's not just ecosystems. What about our fisheries? What about our export industries that create jobs and wealth in our economy?
One thing I can tell you about Tasmanians is that most of them live near the coast and they love fishing. They've all got pots; they all go fishing. We've had huge campaigns on the back of stopping supertrawlers. We've built relationships with recreational fishing groups. They are seeing what's going on. They now want to see things like marine protected areas to try to take the pressure off these oceanic areas. The heatwave in 2015-16 devastated the oyster industry in Tasmania through Pacific oyster mortality syndrome and other viruses. The abalone industry virtually went into collapse, the rock lobster industry is now virtually on its knees in most parts of Tasmania except for south-west Tasmania, and the salmon industry, which is something the Greens have looked into in the past through the Senate, actually couldn't meet its contracts. Tassal, the biggest salmon producer, had to cancel its contract with Coles because of productivity problems it was having from warming waters and lack of dissolved oxygen. We saw mass fish mortality in Macquarie Harbour. This is an industry that Tasmanians are pegging their future growth on, and it's being undermined by climate. There's nowhere to run and there's nowhere to hide in a future of climate change.
It comes back to acting, and I'm pleased to say that this report is not all just about bad news and making sure people are aware of what's going on under the ocean. There's a list of recommendations here that I'm very proud of. There are things we can do, but we've got to be really careful here. Only last year I fought my biggest campaign as a senator to stop hundreds of job cuts at CSIRO in my community in Tasmania and in Victoria. The government tried to cut the jobs of nearly all the climate scientists—the people who work on the modelling, the observations, the forecasting for climate and weather and the ocean systems. There were 350 of them. We were told we didn't need them anymore, because climate change was somehow a fact now and we just needed to get on with doing something about it—not that we're doing that. We managed to reverse those job cuts thanks to a select committee that I chaired with the Greens, and I must thank Labor for their support in that regard as well. But those jobs aren't enough. Just yesterday, the Climate Council said we need at least another 77 climate and weather jobs urgently if we're going to try to manage the risks—the risks to our economy, not just to our ecosystems and to the biodiversity in our oceans. This is as much an economic problem as it is an environmental problem.
There are other key recommendations in here in relation to increased funding for science research, including fully funding the RV Investigator, the new CSIRO boat that's had its funding cut to just 180 days a year. It is one of the world's best research vessels and its capacity is totally underutilised. There are a lot of other good recommendations here. The one that I would like to push—and the committee agreed to at least review the prospect—is to have an oceans commissioner, someone who sits across government departments, liaises with parliament and advocates for the ocean; someone who makes sure the ocean is put front and centre. I would like the process for choosing that position to be that submissions are put out to the community so that we can have an apolitical appointment, someone who's experienced and respected and cares about the oceans. It doesn't cost much to have a commissioner. I admit there have been problems with the Threatened Species Commissioner, but that's because of the way it's been set up, and the appointment. I believe this is a really critical role that we need to legislate for in parliament and implement.
We don't need to wind back protections to marine protected areas. It's absolutely critical we do everything we can to take pressure off the oceans. That's another key recommendation in here. And we've recommended a whole series of things around funding and review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and, of course, changes to the EPBC Act to put in climate triggers. These are big recommendations for change on what arguably is one of the biggest issues we face on the planet. (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of the report of the Environment and Communications Reference Committee inquiry into the impacts of climate change on marine fisheries and biodiversity. I want to start by thanking the chair and my colleagues for their work on this inquiry, as well as all those who made submissions and gave evidence at the hearings. And of course I thank our wonderful secretariat, who always go above and beyond both to help us and to make sure everything runs smoothly.
For this inquiry we held six hearings across the east coast of Australia, from Cairns to Hobart. We heard from scientists, fishermen, tourism operators, conservationists and government agencies, so it was a broad range of people who came along to give evidence to the hearing. We heard a clear message from those people that our oceans are warming and that we must do more. It was a very clear message from all the groups of people who attended as witnesses.
One area where we could do more right now is in our marine protected areas. What the Abbott-Turnbull government has done is nothing short of a disgrace. For the first time ever, a government has proposed deep cuts to the protected marine zones declared by the Governor-General in 2012 and to longstanding marine parks declared over the past 30 years. Under the member for Wentworth's leadership, 40 million hectares of high-level green zone/marine national park are to be downgraded. This is unprecedented globally and not science based. The CSIRO recommends that each marine park should have at least one green zone/marine national park, yet 16 of the marine parks would have no high-level protection under the government's 2017 proposals.
The government's own expert scientific panel recommended that all primary conservation features have at least some representation within the green zones/marine national parks, yet the draft plans leave 259 of Australia's primary conservation features and 20 entire biological regions unrepresented in high protection. These zones keep marine ecosystems functioning in their natural state without the pressure of mining or fishing. Reefs protected in green zones/marine national parks have significantly higher numbers of fish and are recovering much faster from cyclone and coral bleaching damage than adjacent unprotected reefs. One study in the Great Barrier Reef found that the difference in the number of coral trout between the protected areas and what's next-door is 80 per cent—an 80 per cent difference in biomass between the protected areas and what's immediately adjacent to them.
Australia used to have a bipartisan legacy of marine protection stretching back over 40 years to the Whitlam and Fraser governments. Having secured, in 1998, an agreement from the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council to declare the world's first network of science based marine parks, in 2004 the Howard government set what has been described as the 'gold standard' for marine park management by declaring green zones in 34 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Between them, the Howard and Gillard governments declared 60 federal marine parks and completed the network.
As Senator Whish-Wilson has outlined, this committee report recommends a number of measures that this parliament should consider to protect our priceless marine environment in the face of global warming. I commend it to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, 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.
Not long after I was elected in July 2016, at my first meeting with the Prime Minister, I requested that there be a royal commission into the banking sector. At that time, the Prime Minister was reluctant and didn't believe that it was necessary to have a royal commission. I've got to say, the Greens plus the Labor Party have actually supported the royal commission on this. We knew at the time that was not possible, so One Nation actually secured a Senate inquiry into the lending sector for primary production customers. It was a foot in the door, I believed. I hope, having had this inquiry—another one of many—that the inquiry and its recommendations are going to be taken into consideration in the royal commission.
Listening to this inquiry—it was first chaired by Malcolm Roberts, who was a senator but is no longer a senator in this place, and I then took the chair—I have to say that there were a lot of submissions from all Australians, and meetings were held across Australia. I think it's very important for this chamber and the people who will read this Hansard, or are possibly listening to the debate, to understand some of the stories that came out at the hearings and in the submissions. I think it's one of the most heartfelt Senate inquiries that anyone could attend; to listen to what many of our fellow Australians have been confronted with, and for their stories to be heard. These people have felt absolutely hopeless: that no-one was listening to them and no-one was interested in listening to try and make changes. A lot of them know there's no hope for them, but they're hoping that it won't happen to their neighbours, their friends or their relatives. Some are in hope that they may get compensation. When I read stories like this, these matters of primary producers in financial difficulties are not only commercial but also very emotional:
People's livelihoods, homes and whole lives revolve around the property. They are part of the community. When things go awry, it's not just one person that's affected; it's generally a whole family, and it can be generational.
The report goes on to quote another submission:
I have experienced and seen the impact of the recovery practices used by certain senior managers of a number of banks which have not only in some cases physically removed farmers from their homes, but also abused, threatened, intimidated and divided families to the point of unnecessary suicide.
In another submission from someone from the Roma area, the comments were:
You have no idea what is happening out there in the banks, I'm sorry. It is horrific. You should listen to how they can torture you for three or four hours. They twist your mind. At the end of it, you have no hope. You walk away with no hope. It is about two or three days later, when you will go to shoot a cow, that somebody will say to you in your head, 'It would [be] so much easier to shoot yourself'.
That's the sheer fact of it: the suicides that we are seeing and we will continue to see if we do not intervene and bring some justice. Then we go on to other stories, people and their comments:
For example, the committee was informed of a case of a cattle property in Queensland that was valued in 2009 at $3.3 million bare (i.e. no stock on it). In 2012 the receivers for the property valued it at $1.6 million bare, but ultimately sold it for $800,000 with 800 head of cattle given in. Given that 800 head of cattle would be valued at approximately $400,000, the property itself was sold for only $400,000.
I go on here with another one. It was alleged that:
… his receivers charged approximately $700 000 over three years. He provided the committee with an example of what he considered unreasonable fees charged by his receivers:
"... we had no money, nothing, because all the finances were cut off. When we had to pay an account, a phone bill or something like that, we had to get their permission to write the cheque out so that they could pay it—but they charged us $40 for every cheque. Whether it was only a $20 cheque or a $50 cheque, they charged us $40 on every cheque."
The committee heard from Dr Graham Jacobs, a former MLA for the region of Eyre in Western Australia, who outlined a situation which involved exorbitant receiver fees that he had come across during his time as an elected representative. He said:
"I sat with a farmer east of Ravensthorpe as he told me this at his kitchen table. The receiver's fees were charged against the remaining farm asset and reduced all remaining equity. The costs could be exorbitant. In one case, when they appointed the receiver they took over the spraying program to knock down weeds. This was ordered by the receiver. That cost $350,000. An earlier program, which could have been done by the farmer, would have cost $100,000. The ongoing management fees by the bank receivers and the lawyers can be up to $50,000 a month."
There are many more cases here. Some recommendations of the committee are very important to the people, such as:
The committee recommends that:
The lender is not told anything. He's not told about fees; they are not advised whatsoever. The committee recommends that:
… statutory time limits for legal proceedings be removed in circumstances where a bank or its agents have changed the details of loan documents without the customer's knowledge, or the bank or its agents have acted unethically in the course of the commercial dealings with the borrower.
Another recommendation is:
… introducing minimum 90 day notice periods for:
Another recommendation is:
There are many more recommendations here. We're actually advising that the new body that is being set up, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, be able to:
There are other recommendations here. There are 27 recommendations.
I think a big thank you must go to Malcolm Roberts for the tireless work that he did in setting up this inquiry and for working with the farmers. A big thank you must also go to the farmers themselves. Those people have been through so much hardship. When they came before the committee we could see on their faces, 'Not again. Do we have to tell our story again?' It tears them apart. That is why it's very important that we get some results out of this for them.
I would also like to thank Senator John 'Wacka' Williams. He's been marvellous in working with One Nation on this inquiry with his experience and his knowledge. I'd like to thank Don Bundesen from my office. He's been working with farming families. He has saved five family farms from being taken over by the banks. He is helping another 10 farming families, and he will be meeting another 60 in North Queensland. Another person I'd like to thank is Sean Butler from Senator Georgiou's office. I also thank the farmers who have come here today.
I rise to contribute to this debate. Thank you, Senator Hanson, for tabling the report. I was involved from day 1 of this inquiry. Years ago, I said to my then leader, Warren Truss, that I had really serious concerns about receivers going into family farms. It's okay when receivers are put into corporate farms; the management is retained.
I saw a case many years ago where former Senator Bill Heffernan brought an issue to us and we worked with a bank. The receivers had done a shocking job. The sheep were neglected. They were flyblown. They were sent to the sale yards, and they were dying in the yards. The farm was just littered with weeds out of control. It was bad management. I then talked to Steve Munchenberg. He is a bloke I spent a lot of time with. He is a good bloke. He was CEO of the Australian Bankers' Association. I said to Steve, 'Please, tell your members of the Australian Bankers' Association not to send receivers into family farms. Corporate farms—fine.' Here's the problem: when a receiver goes onto a family farm and kicks the farmers off, does the receiver have good knowledge of how to run the farm? Not as good as the generational farmer, I assure you. Also, people get very angry and very bitter.
I thank Senator Georgiou for raising this issue. KordaMentha were the receivers in one case in Western Australia. The receivers told the committee that mustering the sheep, security, transport and agistment had cost a staggering $105,000. Why did they have security? They had security because the receivers were on the property and the people were angry. The receivers had to muster 3,600 sheep. It can be broken down this way: it cost $30,000 for an agriconsultant and $29,000 for security. They brought the security in for one day to put the sheep on the trucks. It cost $29,000 for security to stop the farmers causing trouble. I know one Kenworth truck had its headlights broken. People were angry. It cost $28,000 for mustering and agistment. I don't know how long the sheep were in agistment. It also cost $18,000 for freight. So, what could have been an $18,000 bill, with a bit of agistment as well, became a $105,000 bill. That's money the bank doesn't get and that's money the farmers lose out of their equity, if they have any.
It's been a pretty tough time, especially with the droughts. I remember one year in the early nineties when my brother, Peter, and I had 1,000 castrated sheep to get rid of. They had to get off the place. The ewes had been lambing and we simply didn't have room for them. We literally gave away 500 sheep. For the other 500, I stood in the corner of the paddock and shot them, one by one. The next year I put another 500 in the same patch of ground, in amongst the trees where I had fenced the area off, on top of the skeletons of the previous year. I stood there and shot another 500 sheep. It's not fun, I can assure you, especially when people are starving around the world. That's what we go through on the land.
The point I want to make is this: the banks, on some of the evidence, have done a very good job. Westpac, I think, were excellent. I worked with Westpac when drought affected people in Queensland came to me for advice. If you try to sell a place and it's in a terrible situation, without a blade of grass on a grazing property, a farmer is not going to buy it. They can't get an income. They can't put any stock on it and they can't start producing wool, lamb, beef or whatever. It's a difficult time, but that's the country we live in. So I think patience is required.
The committee recommended Australia-wide farm debt mediation. For 200 years, farmers have been going broke, and for another 200 years farmers will continue to go broke, sadly. But they must be treated as human beings. With the farm debt mediation, which is based on the New South Wales model that was brought in by Bob Carr in New South Wales and went through when he was opposition leader, they sit down and talk about how they are going to sell the assets off and cash things in. If the farmers don't agree with the terms—for example, 'We'll give you three months to sell the property and get the livestock off'—and they can't meet those terms to sell it, they can give vacant possession and put it to an auction or give it time to sell. It's very sad when you see people just kicked off their land, with receivers coming in and the animals and the farm treated so poorly.
My biggest criticism in this inquiry has been about the actions of the receivers. Senator Hanson spoke about a $3.3 million property. That is what it was valued at. The committee saw the valuation of '$3.3 million bare'—bare meaning no livestock on it. That property was sold for $800,000 with 800 head of cattle given in. So that's about $450,000 for the land. How can a property be valued at $3.3 million bare and then be sold for $450,000? Imagine if you had a house, a really flash mansion—it wouldn't have to be a flash mansion in Sydney—that was valued at $3.5 million and someone sold it for $500,000. What a bargain! You'd buy one every day of the week, wouldn't you? That is a situation that must anger those people.
There were some loans dished out to farmers that should never have been dished out. Take the Dingle family, for example, with a property valuation of $1.3 million, and their assets were sold for $580,000. Why? Are the valuers doing their job properly? But I think the message has got through, and the banks are now facing a royal commission—something that I have pursued for seven or eight years—into the wrongdoings of the banks. I must say that some of the banks have done an excellent job. I've had a good working relationship with many of the banks for many years now. My biggest criticism is about the actions of and the way the receivers do their job. I know it's a tough job. They know they're very unpopular with not only the farmers who were on the properties but probably with the whole district. That's what happens in rural Australia. You're not on your own when you're a farmer; you've got neighbours or friends and they like to stick up for you, especially when times are tough.
It is important to note that, when you're dealing with farmers, you're dealing with very proud people—people who live their love and have been there for generations. It is that pride that drives Australian farmers through droughts, low commodity prices, bushfires, floods—you name it; they face it. That pride is very good but that pride can also be very dangerous—if I can put it that way—when you have to shift these people off their land. They have to be treated carefully, they have to be treated gently, and they have to be treated with total respect.
The committee made 27 recommendations—some good recommendations. I'll be pleased when the Australian Financial Complaints Authority is up and running on 1 July so that, if people have a grievance about how they have been treated they have somewhere to seek justice. I hope the Australian Bankers Association put in their code of conduct the message from this inquiry: 'Do not send receivers onto family farms.' As I said, corporate farms are right. The management is retained and the stock and property are looked after. When Cubby Station was in administration, McGrathNicol were the administrators and they charged $9 million to administer it for a couple of years—not a bad bit of money—and the management was retained. But, on a family farm, when you remove the family off it, who can run it, especially in specialist fields such as intensive piggeries, poultry farms and even fish farms?
So I thank everyone who participated in the committee inquiry—the people who gave their submissions and the people who came forward as witnesses. As always, a special thank you to Stephen Palethorpe, the secretary, and Kate and the crew who backed him up. They do an enormous amount of work. The secretariats of the Senate committees have been extraordinarily busy in the last 12 months. I wish them a great holiday over Christmas—they certainly deserve it. I wish them all the best and sincerely thank them for their tireless work. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 469, Commonwealth performance frameworkInquiry based on Auditor-General's report No. 31 of 2015-16 and Nos 6 and 58 of 2016-17, as well as executive minutes and responses on various reports.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit - Tabling Statement - JCPAA Report 469: Commonwealth Performance Framework—Inquiry based on Auditor-General's Reports 31 (2015-16), and 6 and 58 (2016-17)
I present the report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, titled Commonwealth Performance Framework.
This report sets out the findings of the Committee's inquiry based on the following Audit Reports:
The Commonwealth performance framework requires Commonwealth entities to produce corporate plans, Portfolio Budget Statements, annual reports and annual performance statements. Improving this framework, to ensure line of sight between the use of public resources and the outcomes achieved by Commonwealth entities, has been a long-term focus of the Committee.
To build on momentum in the implementation of the Commonwealth performance framework, the Committee has recommended that the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013—the 1 of 3
PGPA Act—be amended to enable mandatory annual audits of performance statements by the Auditor-General, with Commonwealth entities to be consulted on the implementation timeframe. Mandatory audits will provide the necessary incentive in the system to ensure the quality of that reporting is of the required standard. The Parliament and the Australian public would then receive the same assurance on nonfinancial performance reporting as on financial reporting, where an independent audit is mandatory.
Moving towards a mandatory system similar to financial auditing will take some time, to enable entities to build capability and establish effective processes. The Committee seeks to establish the framework to enable this transition process to commence.
The Committee supports the Auditor-General's position that, in the interim, the Australian National Audit Office—the ANAO—should continue to build on its audit methodology in this area so that it is positioned to audit annual performance statements in a similar way to the audit of financial statements, when required to do so. Pending this requirement, the ANAO would continue to consider entity implementation of the PGPA Act through its annual work program.
The Committee has also recommended that:
management teams are working to embed the corporate planning requirements;
In its report, the Committee also concluded that the Department of Education and Training could improve its performance reporting for the Higher Education Loan Program. The Committee endorsed the ANAO finding that the department and the Australian Taxation Office should broaden the range of program information reported publicly, making a recommendation on this matter.
In conclusion, I would like to extend my thanks to all members of the Committee for their deliberations during this inquiry.
I commend the report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
I present two government responses to committee reports as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.
Leave is granted.
The documents read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report:
Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery
December 2017
Introduction
The Australian Government notes the release of the Senate Environment and Communication References Committee's report on factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF). The government thanks the Committee members for the work in delivering the report and associated recommendations. The government also welcomes the release of the dissenting report by government senators.
Australians have a passion for our oceans and have a strong interest in the sustainable management of Australia's fisheries and aquatic resources. The government recognises the strong interest in parts of the community in the operation of factory freezer trawlers in the SPF, and acknowledges the diverse range of opinions on this issue, as represented in the Committee's report.
Australia's Commonwealth fisheries are managed for multiple objectives. The Fisheries Management Act 1991 requires the Minister in the administration of the Act, and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) in the performance of its functions, to ensure that the harvesting of fisheries resources is conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the exercise of the precautionary principle. They must also pursue maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community and implement efficient and cost-effective fisheries management.
The government takes seriously the responsibility to protect the environment and to sustainably manage all fisheries, including the SPF, for the benefit of all Australians into the future. This is why the government is committed to science based fisheries management in Commonwealth fisheries representing world's best practice. In the SPF scientific research is extensive and ongoing.
The public can be assured that the government has a strong legislative and policy framework for managing fisheries. AFMA, the statutorily independent regulator, is focused on ensuring compliance with this framework.
The government is proud of Australia's well-earned reputation as a supplier of safe, environmentally sustainable, high-quality seafood. Australia's fisheries are internationally recognised as among the best managed in the world. The SPF is a good example of the effectiveness of science based fisheries management, and balancing multiple objectives.
The government looks forward to the ongoing sustainable use of the SPF by all types of ocean users for many generations to come, and is confident the Commonwealth's responsive fisheries management framework will deliver this outcome.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Australian Government ban all factory freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. A ban on factory freezer mid-water trawlers is not supported by the available science, expert advice or international best practice in fisheries management.
The government's approach to fisheries management is to maintain fish stocks at ecologically sustainable levels and, within this parameter, maximise net economic returns to the Australian community. A key element in this approach is the use of 'output' controls which are used in most Commonwealth fisheries. Output controls place direct limits (quotas) on the total catch of target species that can be taken in a fishing season. In a well-managed, quota-based fishery, the size of the boat or freezer capacity is of little relevance to fish stock sustainability, providing that quotas are set correctly using the best available science.
Factory trawlers are primarily used for their additional processing, freezing and storage capabilities. On-board processing and freezing capability can optimise the quality and value of the product and can reduce wastage.
The government notes that scientific research into the SPF is extensive and on-going. Scientifically informed management decisions are made to ensure the sustainability of the fishery.
The government will continue to monitor developments in the fishery while ensuring that exploitation of the fishery is conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. These principles include the precautionary principle, and in particular the need to have regard to the impact of fishing on non-target species, and the long term sustainability of the marine environment.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Government expedite its 2013 election commitment to appoint a National Recreational Fishing Council. An Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio minister should chair the Council.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The government recognises the need for appropriate mechanisms for the recreational fishing sector to constructively engage with government on Commonwealth fisheries management matters. The government has recently established the National Recreational Fishing Council, which will allow recreational fishers to better engage with government. The government has also amended its fisheries legislation to strengthen engagement with recreational and Indigenous fishers with respect to the management of Commonwealth fisheries.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the government expedite its 2016 election commitment to amend the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to specify that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is required to consider the interests of all users of fisheries including recreational, Indigenous and commercial fishers.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Consistent with a 2016 election commitment, legislative amendments recently passed the Parliament which will ensure AFMA takes into account the interests of all fisheries users—commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers—in exercising its existing fisheries management responsibilities. The amendments also increase the size of AFMA's Management Advisory Committees.
The amendments do not alter the application of AFMA's decision-making powers. Decisions will continue to be made using evidence based science but will be enhanced by formalising and strengthening input to AFMA decisions from non-commercial fishers.
Recommendation 4
To enhance public confidence in the management of Australian fisheries, the committee recommends that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority publish, on a regular basis, further information about fishing activity in the Small Pelagic Fishery. This information should include:
Publication of this information should occur:
The Australian Government notes the recommendation.
The government supports transparency in fisheries management and community access to relevant information about Commonwealth fisheries. There is a high degree of transparency around fisheries management arrangements and fisheries operations in the SPF. AFMA currently makes substantial information about the SPF publically available including: total catch limits, total catch from the fishery, quarterly reports of interactions with protected species by Commonwealth fishing operators, quota statutory fishing rights, target species status, the SPF Harvest Strategy and the SPF Management Plan.
The government supports the release of data and information about the SPF consistent with AFMA's, policy of balancing the release of information about fishing activities with the need to protect commercially sensitive information. AFMA determines this in line with its legislative obligations and its information disclosure policy.
Recommendation 5
As the visual identification of protected species is critical for their protection, the committee recommends that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority restrict mid-water trawling in the Small Pelagic Fishery to daylight hours.
The Australian Government does not agree with this recommendation.
The government notes that the intent of this recommendation is the protection of protected species. Extensive effective measures to minimise interactions with protected species are already in place in the SPF.
All food production activities have some level of impact on the environment and in the case of fishing, the most visible impacts can be the interaction with non-target species, or bycatch.
Night fishing is a common practice around the world and necessary to effectively fish for certain species. AFMA has established a marine mammal working group to provide advice on marine mammal management arrangements for Commonwealth managed fisheries. This work includes developing mitigation and avoidance strategies. The group is structured to elicit the best possible advice from a wide variety of experts.
The SPF management regime has been assessed against the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The management regime is currently accredited under part 13 of the EPBC Act for interactions with protected species.
It is open to AFMA to move to restrict fishing to daylight hours if that is deemed essential.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority require estimates of spawning biomass based on the daily egg production method to be obtained for all quota fish populations in the Small Pelagic Fishery more frequently than the current arrangements. The cost of these surveys is to be recovered from industry.
The Australian government notes the recommendation and will refer it to AFMA for consideration.
The government will continue to support daily egg production method (DEPM) surveys as one of the primary mechanisms to inform the SPF's Harvest Strategy.
The timetable for undertaking DEPM surveys in the SPF is determined by the AFMA Commission, drawing on advice from expert sources including the SPF Scientific Panel. The AFMA Commission also reviews the frequency of DEPM surveys with regard to cost and the commercial fishing effort.
The government expects costs of the DEPM surveys to be recovered from industry through statutory levies charged in accordance with the relevant legislation and the government's cost recovery policy.
Dissenting report
The Australian Government acknowledges the dissenting report released by Coalition senators Senator David Bushby and Senator Jonathon Duniam and notes the comments it includes on the Chair's report recommendations 1, 4, 5 and 6.
The government's response to the recommendations contained in the dissenting report are as follows.
Recommendation 1
The management of Commonwealth fisheries continues to be based on the best available science and a strong compliance regime.
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation. The government is strongly committed to managing Australia's fisheries using the best available scientific knowledge. This is why the government places significant emphasis on scientific research and has a strong legislative and policy framework for managing fisheries. AFMA, the independent regulator, is in place to ensure compliance with this framework. The government notes that Australia's fisheries are among the best managed in the world.
Recommendation 2
There should be on-going dialogue and discussion between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors in relation to the management of Commonwealth fisheries.
The Australian Government notes the recommendation.
The government recognises that commercial and recreational fishers have many shared interests including stock sustainability, marine ecosystem preservation and community accountability for the responsible use of public resources. Stronger engagement between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors on matters of common interest could lead to more comprehensive, consistent and informed advice to the AFMA Commission which independently regulates Commonwealth fisheries. This includes through the participation of commercial and recreational fishing representatives on AFMA's Management Advisory Committees (MACs) and Resource Assessment Groups (RAGs). In turn this should ultimately improve fisheries management outcomes.
The government has provided grants to both the recreational and seafood industry sectors, through the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation and National Seafood Industry Alliance. This support will help improve the capacity of these sectors to engage in public policy matters of relevance to our fisheries.
The government notes that AFMA, in performing its functions, must pursue sustainability and economic objectives. AFMA's MACs and RAGs provide advice to the AFMA Commission to support fishery management decisions. Legislative amendments recently passed the Parliament which will improve the capacity of recreational (and Indigenous) fishers to contribute to Commonwealth fisheries management.
Additional comments
The government notes the additional comments included in the report by Labor senators, Senator Anne Urquhart, Senator Carol Brown, Senator Anthony Chisolm and Senator Sam Dastyari.
1 Australian Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration Report: Inquiry into Migration and Multiculturalism in Australia
December 2017
Preamble
The Australian Government is unwavering in its commitment to a multicultural Australia: one which celebrates and acknowledges the benefits that diversity brings — socially, economically and culturally. The Government is pleased to respond to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration's Inquiry into Migration and Multiculturalism in Australia (the Inquiry).
On 20 March 2017, the Government launched its new multicultural statement, Multicultural Australia: United, Strong, Successful. This statement identifies the Government's priorities and strategic directions that will guide programs and policies for the coming years, and is available online at www.dss.gov.au/settlementand-multicultural-affairs/australian-governments-multicultural-statement.
The statement reaffirms our commitment to a multicultural Australia, and serves as the foundation on which we can further build our multicultural society. We will encourage the economic and social participation of new arrivals, harness the advantages of our diversity and shared national interest, and continue to build harmonious and socially cohesive communities.
Australia is a successful and vibrant multicultural nation, with nearly half its population either born overseas or having at least one parent born overseas. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015 report shows that Australia has one of the highest rates of welcoming migrants, with 90 per cent of people agreeing that their place of residence is a good place for migrants. Australia also has one of the smallest discrepancies between locally born and overseas born unemployment rates in the OECD. We are one of the most successful and cohesive societies in the world.
Australia is a country uniquely defined by its people, its land and its Indigenous inheritance. We are united by our shared values of respect, equality and freedom, and together we create a fair society with a balance between individual rights and mutual responsibilities. While security threats have been a valid cause for concern in recent years, Australians from all backgrounds remain united, and the strength of our communities endures.
The Australian Government acknowledges the significant work being done by government agencies to support migration and multiculturalism across Australia. This work ranges across portfolios including: social and human services, immigration, education, training, employment and health.
The Australian Government thanks all those who were involved in the work of the Inquiry and delivery of the final report. In particular, to the members of the Committee and those organisations and individuals that contributed submissions — your involvement in this national conversation is valued and appreciated.
In relation to the government response to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report on factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
This is another committee that the Greens worked with Labor on. We were the chair of this committee. There are some very important recommendations in this. Recommendation 1 was that the committee recommended a ban on all factory freezer midwater trawlers from operating in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.
One of the biggest campaigns I've seen since my time as a senator has been against two super trawlers that have come to these waters. I'm not surprised that the government has rejected that recommendation of the Senate references committee. There are a number of other recommendations there that the government will take on notice. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the government's response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on Australia's video game development industry and to Ms Sally Zou.
The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.
by leave—I move:
Discharged—
Senator Dastyari
Participating member: Senator Collins
Appointed—
Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Dastyari
Question agreed to.
Apologies, Madam Acting Deputy President. I was attempting to draw your attention in order to make a response to the tabling of the document relating to the government response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on Australia's video game development industry. I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator Steele-John, the time for the debate has finished. But if you seek leave to continue your remarks, you can continue later.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
The committee is considering the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017. The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (2) to (4) on sheet 8314:
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 26), after "1052B", insert ", 1052BA".
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (after line 7), after section 1052B, insert:
1052BA Directions to ensure sufficient financing
(1) ASIC may give AFCA a written direction under this section if ASIC considers that AFCA has not done all things reasonably practicable to ensure that the operations of the AFCA scheme are sufficiently financed.
(2) The direction must set out the specific measures that AFCA must take to ensure that the operations of the AFCA scheme are sufficiently financed.
(3) ASIC must not give a direction under this section unless ASIC has given AFCA written notice of at least 1 month of ASIC's intention to issue the direction.
(4) AFCA must comply with a direction made under this section.
Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1).
(5) If AFCA fails to comply with the direction, ASIC may apply to the Court for, and the Court may make, an order that AFCA comply with the direction.
(6) A direction made under this section is not a legislative instrument.
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 29 (after table item 311), insert:
311A Subsection 1052BA(4) 100 penalty units for each day, or part of a day, in respect of which the offence is committed.
We won't be moving amendment (1) as there's duplication. I will briefly speak to amendments (2) to (4). Quickly, on amendment (1), review of the operation of amendments: we asked for a clause to be put in for an independent review that was comprehensive. That was tabled in parliament; that wasn't an legislative instrument. I think that has been dealt with now through the government's own amendments, and it's been recommended by other senators.
In relation to schedules 2, 3 and 4, the amendments are really important. I would really urge the Senate to support these amendments. Essentially, these give the Australian Securities and Investments Commission special powers and consideration to make sure that this new entity, AFCA, is properly financed—that it actually has the funding in place to deal with complaints. I've had experience of this with FOS, one of the entities that's being merged into AFCA. I think I've spoken on 7.30 on this issue, and I know that Senator Xenophon has also made public comments. If not the perception there's the reality that, under the current system, with a huge backlog, it's not necessarily in the banks' or the big financial service companies' interests to get through a big backlog of financial complaints, because they often have to pay them out, and that funding was a real problem. We had accusations that the senators looked at directly where complainants were told that their complaints couldn't be heard, because FOS didn't have the resources at that point in time. We have to make sure that the whole spirit of setting up AFCA—and the Greens support, in this debate, merging FOS and CIO—is that we have a better funding model in place so that there's no hanky-panky or monkey business with providing the funding that's needed to get through backlogs of these complaints.
As a backup—and this is specifically in relation to concerns raised by the CIO and stakeholders around them—we would give ASIC the oversight, which is outlined in some detail on schedule 1, item 2, page 11, where we insert:
1052BA Directions to ensure sufficient financing
(1) ASIC may give AFCA a written direction under this section if ASIC considers that AFCA has not done all things reasonably practicable to ensure that the operations of the AFCA scheme are sufficiently financed.
(2) The direction must set out the specific measures that AFCA must take to ensure that the operations of the AFCA scheme are sufficiently financed.
(3) ASIC must not give a direction under this section unless ASIC has given AFCA written notice of at least 1 month of ASIC's intention to issue the direction.
(4) AFCA must comply with a direction made under this section.
Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1).
(5) If AFCA fails to comply with the direction, ASIC may apply to the Court for, and the Court may make, an order that AFCA comply with the direction.
Schedule 1, item 3, page 29, under (4), has the penalties for not doing so. This gives ASIC not only administrative oversight et cetera but also the ability to actually look at the financing of this body. Hopefully that won't be a problem; hopefully this will work. If not, ASIC has the ability to fund those.
I do have some specific questions that I want to ask in relation to the new body, Minister, so I might get through those quickly, if that's okay. I will come back to the amendments in a second. This is in relation to the power to obtain documents under the new AFCA architecture. Will AFCA be given the power to obtain documents for non-superannuation related matters? Very quickly, under FOS's current terms of reference, where a party to a dispute without reasonable excuse fails to provide or procure information or to take any other step requested, FOS may make an adverse inference and rule against the party on that basis. Will AFCA have that power?
Yes.
In terms of the funding model and the levying formula, the AFCA consultation paper includes, among other things, the following as likely principles for the funding model:
Will the government commit to those principles?
Yes.
In relation to public reporting, currently under their terms of reference, FOS must produce a report at least every 12 months, which includes a comprehensive summary and analysis of the data collected. Amongst other things, it includes the following statistical information about each financial services provider: the number of disputes referred to FOS, the number of disputes closed and the outcome of these disputes. Will AFCA make the same requirement?
Yes, they will, Senator.
I didn't think it'd be this easy! That was unclear from the minister's media release on 14 September 2017. In relation to staff—I know this one might be a bit more difficult for you to answer, Minister—do you expect there'll be more employees in total under the new body?
I'm advised that it is actually a matter for AFCA.
Well, could I ask where AFCA will be located?
It will be a matter for the AFCA board.
What happens to the current employees of the SCT? Unfortunately, we lost the amendment today to have it excluded at this point in time. These are the kinds of details that are really important to the staff that are working at the SCT, and the CPSU, the union. If it were in Melbourne, it would be a lot easier on the staff. Why haven't these details been worked through yet?
It's my advice that the members of the SCT are employees of ASIC, and they will have the option of returning to ASIC if that's what they choose to do so. But, equally, an option for them to go to AFCA may be available to them, if the appropriate conditions are suitable to the employee.
I mentioned in my second reading—and we've gone through it in a bit of detail today—that the TOR for this new body, or the details, haven't been worked out yet or disclosed. In conversations with the minister, we've repeatedly raised concerns about loss of jobs, particularly with the SCT being merged into this entity. It does concern me that a location hasn't even been picked for where this is going to be. If you've got employees in one town, like Melbourne, it is obviously going to be a lot harder for some of them to move if it's going to be somewhere else. Can you say why they haven't decided yet where the location of this is going to be? Will you give assurances here today that, if there are employees at the SCT that aren't going to go to AFCA, for whatever reason, they will be redeployed within the public service?
The current employees of the SCT, as I said before, are currently employees of ASIC on secondment to this organisation, so they can't lose their jobs and they won't lose their jobs. They will have the option of returning to ASIC, if that's what they want to do. Equally, once the new organisation has been established—subject, obviously, to the approval of this chamber—the details of the employment opportunities for those people that are currently working not just at the SCT but in the other two ombudsman offices will be available to them, should they wish to apply.
In relation, once again, to the SCT and the merging of the superannuation complaints mechanism into AFCA, it's pretty obvious to them that the devil's going to be in the detail in relation to the rules and operational arrangements of AFCA, which are still being developed. What consultation will the minister undertake from this point? Will these details be the subject of extensive consultation with industry stakeholders such as the CPSU, Industry Super and ASFA?
The transition team, which is currently being headed up by Dr Malcolm Edey, will be doing extensive consultation in relation to the details.
You're giving assurances here today that there will be extensive consultation?
Dr Edey is already out consulting at the moment and will continue to do so.
I have another question in relation to this. I understand that Pam McAlister from Mercer is developing the rules and operational arrangements for AFCA with Treasury. Have some financial institutions already been consulted on the governance and funding issues? Could you tell us who they are? Have any not-for-profit representatives been consulted?
I've been advised that it's a public consultation process, which means that anybody is able to take part in the consultation.
So not-for-profit representatives within the superannuation industry will be able to participate or you will be consulting with them directly on the many fine details that we're yet to see about how this is going to work?
I've been advised that CALC and ISA have already been consulted as part of this process, but in response to your general question the answer is yes, the access is available to them.
Just to clarify—the process has come to the point where we have the legislation. My question was specifically into all the details around the terms of reference and the operational rules and arrangements, which we're yet to see. I don't think anyone has seen them. Will you be going through extensive consultation processes with those stakeholders?
There is already a consultation paper that's out in the public domain. The terms of reference of the consultation are outlined in that, and it is quite clear that that is what they are consulting about.
Labor would like to indicate that we will be supporting the Greens amendments on sheet 8314. These amendments give ASIC explicit power to direct AFCA to take steps to ensure that it is sufficiently financed—fundamental for any organisation. It's important that the new AFCA has adequate resources to properly consider disputes, and we note that ASIC has a directions power under the bill with respect to AFCA. We will support this amendment, to put beyond doubt that this includes making sure that the AFCA scheme is sufficiently financed.
Senator Whish-Wilson, could I confirm that you do not wish to move amendment (1) on sheet 8314?
That's correct; just amendments (2), (3) and (4).
Before you put the question, Madam Temporary Chair, I would like to say that the government will not be opposing these amendments, although we would like to put on the record that we believe that providing these additional powers to ASIC is unnecessary, because we believe that the legislation already currently provides the general direction powers to ASIC that it can to ensure that AFCA is adequately funded. However, in that context, we will not be opposing the Greens amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (2) to (4) on sheet 8134 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
(Quorum formed)
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Labor is disappointed that the amendments to retain the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal were unsuccessful. We are concerned by the unsatisfactory answers from the government about the process for implementing the proposed AFCA. However, recognising the numbers in the Senate in relation to our amendments, we will not oppose the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The committee is considering the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 as amended. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (8) to (11) on sheet 8225 together:
(8) Clause 53, page 28 (after line 5), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) The persons who undertake the review must undertake any consultation that is:
(a) considered by the persons to be appropriate; and
(b) reasonably practicable to undertake.
(1B) In determining whether any consultation that was undertaken is appropriate, the persons undertaking the review may have regard to any relevant matter, including the extent to which the consultation:
(a) drew on the knowledge of persons having expertise in fields relevant to the matters relevant to the review; and
(b) ensured that persons likely to be affected by the matters relevant to the review, including members of the general public, had an adequate opportunity to comment on the matters relevant to the review.
(9) Clause 53, page 28 (line 6), omit "1 July 2024", substitute "1 July 2023".
(10) Clause 53, page 28 (line 8), omit "30 June 2026", substitute "30 June 2024".
(11) Clause 53, page 28 (after line 11), at the end of subclause (2), add:
; and (c) the effectiveness of the Corporation in facilitating the administration of farm business loans, including the ability of the Corporation to assess loans in a manner, and within a timeframe, that facilities the timely provision of loans to farmers in need; and
(d) the ability of the Corporation to achieve national consistency in the provision and administration of loans; and
(e) the effectiveness of the Corporation, in delivering grants of financial assistance to States and Territories in relation to water infrastructure projects, to fast-track particular water infrastructure projects that are considered, by the State or Territory, to be a priority.
Labor's amendments are seeking to strengthen the review of the corporation. The current bill provides no detail about the scope of the review. It is important that the review reflects the objectives currently put forward by the minister as to why this corporation is necessary. It is also important to include detail about who can undertake the review. Again, this requirement is similar to what is detailed in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act. To ensure that the corporation's review is independent of political interference, Labor believes that the requirements of the review should be proscribed in the current legislation. Labor further believes that the review date needs to be brought forward so that the work of the corporation can be assessed earlier as to whether it indeed is achieving the objectives stated by the government. Further, the review should be brought forward so that any recommendation of the review can be implemented in a timely manner.
The Greens will be supporting Labor's amendments today because we believe these amendments will make what we see as a particularly bad bill at least slightly better. The fundamental problems with this bill and the setting up of the Regional Investment Corporation are around the issue of governance. We have so much evidence of poor governance in the requirements set out in this bill. We haven't got transparency. There is no ability to ensure that decisions that this corporation would make are transparent, accountable and associated with good governance principles.
In particular, the aspects of the Labor amendments that we support include making the operating mandate disallowable, because this is critical. If you are setting up an organisation where you can just change the operating mandate without it having to go back before the parliament, it just makes a mockery of appropriate processes. Rather than leaving the operating mandate to ministerial discretion, which is leaving the door wide open for things to occur, the operating mandate should contain rules for the eligibility criteria for loan recipients, information about water infrastructure project selection and the location of the corporation. As we heard during previous debate about this, the fact that the location for the corporation was chosen with no process whatsoever is symptomatic of the problems, overall, with this bill.
We are supporting the amendments that would make CEO conflicts of interest transparent and that ensure that the future review of the act is robust, independent and transparently reported. Although we believe that this bill is irretrievably bad due to its departure from good governance principles, in the event that the bill is passed these amendments would go some way towards preventing the most egregious abuses of power by the minister.
In response to the comments from Senator Rice, I'll reiterate what I said before, when this bill was on for debate at a previous time, that the government believes that there is an appropriate level of oversight, given the nature and significance of the directions that are set out in the operating mandate. We don't believe that making it a disallowable instrument is appropriate, as we believe that the way we have set it out is absolutely appropriate.
Specifically, in relation to amendments (8) to (11), which are currently before the chair, and how the review is going to be undertaken and by whom, we believe that the content of the act is sufficient to demonstrate the necessity of the review. We believe that the additional information that is being sought through amendment (8) is unnecessary. We believe the current provision included in the bill is reflective of other such entities and what has been included in their legislation in relation to their review mechanisms, so we believe that that is appropriate.
I will just try and clarify the issue of timing raised in amendments (9) and (10). The reason that we expressly put in July 2024 was that we believe that that is an appropriate time, two years out, for most of the current functions that are being proposed for the RIC—that is, the loans instruments and also the water infrastructure fund. Most of them are extended out to 2026. We believe that July 2024 was an appropriate time in which to review the ongoing functions of the corporation after 2026. The reason we put 2026 in the bill, which relates to amendment (10), was that that is the time when the existing activities that are currently proposed for the RIC are due to expire.
This isn't a matter of bringing it forward or putting it out. There is an express reason why these two particular dates are in the bill, and that is that they coincide, clearly, with a time line that allows us a two-year transition period to be able to work towards the end of the existing activities. That is the drop-dead date on which the current activities end. I'd be keen to hear from the shadow minister opposite as to the basis for wanting to bring forward the date of the completion of the review to 2023 and why it relates to June 2024, when it actually relates to the activities of the corporation post-2026.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments Nos (8) to (11) on sheet 8225, as moved by Senator Brown, be agreed to.
I move opposition amendment (12) on sheet 8225:
(12) Clause 53, page 28 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by the Minister.
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be published on the internet within 30 days after its receipt by the Minister.
This amendment is important to ensure that the government cannot hide the outcomes of the review. The government is asking the parliament to support this bill without proper parliamentary scrutiny and is seeking to keep the review a secret. This is wrong, and Labor urges all senators to support this important amendment. The amendment prescribes that the review report should be tabled in the parliament and made public. It says that the minister must cause a copy of the report be tabled in each house of parliament within 15 sitting days of that house after its receipt by the minister and that the minister must cause a copy of the report to be published on the internet within 30 days after its receipt by the minister.
The government will not be supporting this amendment, because we believe that the future operations of the corporation and the activities in relation to how they wish to handle the tabling or making public of the report should be a matter for the corporation and therefore, to a large extent, a matter for the government of the day.
The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Brown, amendment (12) on sheet 8225, be agreed to.
Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.
Senator O'Neill did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash.
Senator Birmingham did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
I wish to remind the chamber that, in her final speech to the Senate, former Senator Jacqui Lambie made the following statement:
I don't know what will happen next, personally or politically, for me. The government may be tempted to use my absence as an opportunity. To do so would be a mistake, because, while I may not be here, the Jacqui Lambie Network should still be represented, just as those who voted for the Jacqui Lambie Network deserve to have their votes represented. That's why I want to let the position of the Jacqui Lambie Network regarding upcoming legislation be known.
She went on to say:
… the Jacqui Lambie Network's position on the Regional Investment Corporation should be taken as that of the Leader of the Opposition.
Accordingly, the opposition expects the government to honour the expressed wishes of former Senator Lambie on the remaining questions on this bill in the same way that two opposition senators will not vote to compensate for the vacancies for the places formerly occupied in this place by Fiona Nash and Stephen Parry.
If the government does not respect the pairing conventions in this place, then I foreshadow that, in the event the pair is not honoured on this question that the bill as amended be agreed to, I will move an amendment to the motion that the report of the committee be adopted. I will seek to add the following words, which have now been circulated:
"And the Senate notes the express wishes of former Senator Jacqui Lambie that the Jacqui Lambie Network's position on the Regional Investment Corporation should be taken as that of the Leader of the Opposition, and is of the view that this be reflected in the usual pairing arrangements on any further questions on this bill."
I foreshadow that I will move that motion, because it seems that the government is suggesting that convention provides otherwise. For the crossbench, I want you to understand that the government, in suggesting that they have that as clear and solid advice, is simply not accurate. There is only one precedent on this issue, and that is Bob Day. Bob Day gave no indication at all as to his voting intentions, as opposed to Senator Jacqui Lambie, who clearly did. I recall her final speech, as indeed I think almost every senator in this place will. It's an issue of principle. It's an issue of convention. And the government's suggestion that convention has been established by just that one incident in relation to Bob Day is simply wrong.
I completely reject the proposition that has just been put. The chamber has been going through a debate on the Regional Investment Corporation, and none of us in this chamber could possibly know what the view of either former Senator Jacqui Lambie or the Jacqui Lambie Network would have been after considering the arguments that were put during this debate. The time to make a judgement is the time when a vote is taken.
The government, in good faith, paired former senators Ludlam and Waters, and we've paired others, where there is a clearly established party position. And of course the same happens on our side. In relation to the Jacqui Lambie Network, there is no capacity for us to know what the view of the Jacqui Lambie Network would have been at the conclusion of the debate. Everyone who has been in this chamber, even for a short period, knows that positions, in particular on the crossbench, can move in different directions, depending on how the debate evolves and depending on what amendments are put forward. And there is absolutely no capacity for us to establish the position of a senator who resigned from the Senate on the basis that she was ineligible to sit in this chamber.
The situation in relation to the Greens was quite different because the Greens continued to be represented in this chamber. It is quite easy for the chamber to identify what the position of the Greens is right now, after the debate has taken place. It is quite easy for us to identify what the position of the Nick Xenophon Team is. That is why we are pairing Senator Kakoschke-Moore. It is impossible for us to know what the position of former Senator Lambie or the Jacqui Lambie Network would have been, given that she was not here to participate in the debate. The government always respects pairing arrangements, but we are not in a position to provide a pair in relation to somebody who wasn't eligible to sit in this chamber and who doesn't have any other party representation in this chamber.
I first want to apologise to the chamber for my attire. I was trying to do some exercise. They're all laughing at me, behind me, but I'll remember that!
I want to make clear to Senator Cormann that, on a range of issues where Senator Lambie had not indicated her vote, the opposition had accepted that there was not agreement in the chamber, particularly with the government whip, for her vote to be paired. But we have previously made it clear, and I again make it clear now: on those issues, Senator Lambie gave a very clear indication as to what her position would be, in the speech she gave. I will just remind the Senate that it was not always a vote with the Labor Party. There were occasions—I think there was a vote with Senator Hinch, and with the government, on various bills. And, while you may refuse to accept that, the opposition will reconsider the current pairing arrangements. I make that utterly clear. What goes around comes around. I've made that clear from day 1. I do not expect the government to behave like this in a chamber where conventions around pairing have always been honoured.
This is an entirely uncalled for intervention. The government, in good faith, respected the pairs of the two Greens senators that were absent from this chamber—including on votes that went against us—on that basis. We consistently, and all the way through, respected the pairs of the Greens. We continue to consistently respect the pair of Senator Kakoschke-Moore on the basis that these are Senate positions held by respective parties for which it is possible for the chamber to know what the position of that party is on a particular question after the debate has taken place. There is no capacity whatsoever for us to know what the position of an ineligible senator, of a party that is not represented in this chamber now, is after the debate has taken place. The debate has only just finalised. Nobody in this chamber can possibly know what the position would've been if there had been full participation by that senator who has resigned from the chamber in the debate that has just taken place. I'm disappointed that Senator Wong, who I hold in high regard, made that threat, because the government consistently acted in good faith in relation to all pairs, with the exception of a request for a pair, which we've never accepted, in relation to a party that right now is not represented in this chamber. It is completely unreasonable to expect that the government would act in recognition of a pair for somebody who resigned because of ineligibility and whose party is not here to indicate a party position.
I completely reject the position that has just been put by Minister Cormann. We have had the grand total of half an hour of extra debate on this since former Senator Lambie resigned—half an hour, in the last half an hour, on Labor's amendments. Former Senator Lambie made it very clear that her position on the Regional Investment Corporation should be that of the opposition. Given that the only debate that has transpired since Jacqui Lambie resigned has been debate on Labor Party amendments, it is quite appropriate that her position, which was very clear at the end of that debate—we've only had half an hour of further debate since Jacqui Lambie resigned. I think it's appalling for the government to basically be completely disregarding the views of Jacqui Lambie and completely going against the conventions of this place of pairing when it comes to representing the views of former Senator Lambie and the Jacqui Lambie Network.
The fact of the matter is that we do not know what the view of the successor to former Senator Lambie would be in this place. We cannot know in this place and at this time what the view of the Jacqui Lambie Network would be, because the Jacqui Lambie Network is not represented in this place at this time. The proposition that is being put forward by those opposite is that any view expressed before former Senator Lambie left this chamber should be adhered to. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then former Senator Lambie would be entitled to reach out beyond ineligibility into this place, by way of an email each day on each and every motion, on each and every vote and on each and every procedural motion, to express her view. Are those opposite saying that we should accept former Senator Lambie's view as expressed by email each day, or are they saying that, no, you should only accept the views of former Senator Lambie as expressed when she was in this place, which she was not eligible to sit in?
Temporary Chairman Ketter, I'm having a great deal of difficulty in finding the thread of consistency from the view expressed by those on the other side. The pairing arrangements which we have in this place relate to situations where the party of a senator who is no longer in this place is, nevertheless, represented so that there is able to be determined a view of a political grouping in this place. That is not the case in relation to former Senator Lambie. Are we seriously suggesting that former Senator Lambie should be able to send an email in here each day saying, 'If I were there, which I'm not, and if I were eligible, which I wasn't, this would be the view that I would hold.' That is something which is completely untenable.
It's no secret that I'm opposed to this bill. I think it's wrong. I'm trying to reflect on the principle which is being argued here. I do not believe that it is appropriate for a senator who was never duly elected, as the High Court has found, to rule from beyond the political grave. That's essentially what people are trying to argue with Senator Lambie's final statements to this place. I'm acutely aware of the pairing arrangements. We should be mindful that, between the major parties, the pairing arrangements have survived enormous constitutional crises—right through the Whitlam supply issues. They survived that in the Senate. I think that's a really very important point to make. I also know how accommodating both the opposition and the government can be with respect to providing pairing arrangements in circumstances like the Xenophon Team find themselves—
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
or the Greens, for that matter—where there are, absolutely, some representatives of the party. The reality is that Senator Lambie was never Senator Lambie. Senator Lambie did not get elected to this place, because she wasn't eligible to serve in this place. We also know that Senator Lambie's running mate no longer wants to represent the Jacqui Lambie Network, or whatever it's called. These are the circumstances we find ourselves in. It is a matter of principle, Mr Chairman, that I think the government is actually right in this circumstance. I know that may cost the outcome of the bill—something to what I'm opposed to.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Just excuse me for a moment. Why don't you grow up? You are such a child—and an ugly, ugly, internalised hatred.
Keep going. Keep going, Cory. C'mon, let's have it.
Order! Interjections are disorderly. Please, Senator Bernardi, if you would address your remarks to the chair.
I will. Thank you, Mr Chairman. What we find—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sit down, Senator Bernardi. We have a point of order.
If Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is doing us the discourtesy of interjecting consistently so that we can't hear Senator Bernardi, she should at least do it from her proper seat.
I shouldn't reflect on the lack of emotional intelligence and the internalised hate that some senators feel, including Senator Hanson-Young—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry—excuse me, Senator Bernardi. Sit down. On the point of order, just to rule: if Senator Hanson-Young is going to make interjections, she should do that from her chair.
It is like a Twitter feed going off in my ear. It's of no consequence at all. No-one really pays any attention to it. Senator Hanson-Young can sit there and talk away all she likes. It makes no difference to me.
It's just like you, Cory.
Barry says 'hello', by the way, Sarah. I go back to the point. The point is of principle here. What you use for your political advantage at one particular time will come back to haunt you. Senator Wong is absolutely right in that respect. I just can't justify how Senator Lambie should have a pair in this place, given the circumstances.
Why should Nash?
If I may respond to that interjection, I would say that Senator Nash should have a pair because the government has a series of pairs that are allocated to them that stand the test of time. That is the principle that is attached to this. No amount of interjections or hysterical shrieking is going to change that. If it comes to a vote, I will support the government on this even though I'm opposed to this bill.
I'll just make a couple of points. Senator Bernardi is right in this regard—there are principles here. The government's point reflects the fact that until more recently, with the exception of Senator Harradine and some other notable exceptions, the majority of senators in this chamber were from larger political parties, and pairing arrangements have reflected that. We are in a situation where we have to reflect on how we deal with a pairing arrangement where there's a party that will replace its senator, but there is no-one in the parliament yet to indicate the position of that party. That's the position. And the matter of principle that—
It's not a vacancy; it's a countback.
May I, please, Mathias? I'm in my tracksuit. Can you let me talk. That is the question: how does the Senate reflect its will, notwithstanding a vacancy, notwithstanding an absence in the count that we undertake? For example, the opposition has lost amendments during this debate because of Senator Nash's pair. Senator Nash, who was ineligible—and there is a countback—was ineligible ab initio; in fact, for many years. We've reflected her pair in the vote, as we should.
It might not go to the same party.
Well, actually, Senator Collins makes a good point. The point here, though, is when we have a single senator who is a member of a party—so she's not elected as an Independent; there is a party—how does the Senate appropriately reflect the will of the Senate, bearing in mind that the best available evidence is that that position will be filled by a member of the same party? We should have turned our minds to that before Senator Lambie left. Our view was, and I think there was some discussions with others, that the best way to try to deal with it was for Senator Lambie to indicate the position of her party on various matters. Frankly, some of the disdainful remarks from the Manager of Government Business—
'Disingenuous' it's called.
Some may say 'disingenuous', but I'm feeling charitable for the moment. Some suggest, 'It's just a personal view,' and that she can email a vote. That isn't what happened in this chamber. She had been elected, regardless of the views we may have whether the Jacqui Lambie Network is the same sort of political party that we might be part of, and she indicated the position of her party on specified bills. The opposition has not sought to give effect to that until today. On previous occasions, there was the superannuation legislation, which has not come to a vote, and marriage equality, where, really, the conscience vote character of that debate meant the party arrangements for pairing were not observed.
We do think there's a matter of principle here—and it may become more relevant in the future. To the crossbench: what the government is saying to you is they want a pair for the man who sat in the President's seat, knowing that he was at risk of having British citizenship, that a cabinet minister had to be referred and kept quiet about it. Despite some suggesting that the morality of those circumstances ought to mean we deny a pair, we did not do so. We think the conventions which enable this Senate to reflect the will of the chamber, notwithstanding vacancies, ought to be observed. I really encourage the government not to go down this path. We will not be in a position where we can continue to provide the entirety of the same courtesies which have been provided to date for the reasons I have outlined.
I make this point again: if you look at the list of specified matters—and it's not an enormous list; seven including marriage, so six—Senator Lambie specified where her position would be; Senator Hinch's party would indicate the vote in respect of the drug-testing bill; the government would indicate where the vote would be cast in respect of first home saver; and NXT in respect of veterans' affairs. This is not a Labor Party plot; it's actually about making sure that, for the people in Tasmania who voted for that party, the democratic process reflects that vote in this chamber. It is precisely the same principle as is applied to Senators Parry, Nash and others.
The weakness in the opposition's argument here is that we all have stood here at various times, including senators from the Labor Party, and said that Barnaby Joyce should not have voted because he was under a cloud and that Senator Nash should not vote because she was under a cloud, and praised Senator Canavan when he stood down from his portfolio and said he wouldn't vote—all of those things. The bottom line here is that Jacqui Lambie is not a senator anymore. She resigned. And she was a one-man band. It is the same as if I had resigned. I doubt whether you'd give me that sort of credibility. She is not a senator. She was not legally elected as a senator and, therefore, what she feels and what she thinks should not apply in this chamber anymore. It's cruel. I'm very fond of Senator Lambie, as I said in my tribute to her, but the bottom line here is that Jacqui Lambie is not Senator Jacqui Lambie and she should have no say and no power in this chamber.
Just briefly, I would like to add a contribution on this as somebody who previously spent over 10 years in this chamber. I do think it's a significant precedent that's potentially being set here. When you're talking about conventions, they are obviously, by definition, fragile things. The conventions around pairing have managed to survive for, as far as I know, over a century, despite always being conventions. Once they are broken or fractured, even in the way that is being proposed, it is a dangerous path to go down.
I understand the argument that's been made by Senator Bernardi and Senator Hinch, but it does need to be said, firstly, that Senator Lambie was elected as part of a ticket, as part of a team, as part of a registered political party, under the Electoral Act, and in that sense she is no different from any of us here. In the coalition and the Greens, we all have the opportunity, under our parties' rules, to exercise conscience votes, to vote separately. So who is to say, with any of the individual senators who have resigned, or have been ruled ineligible for various reasons, that they would have voted exactly the same way as their party on every single issue? We do not know for sure. But, as Senator Wong has said, it's the best we can do and very close to a good representation, with a good expectation of ensuring that the Senate reflects the genuine view of the chamber, in the same way as we had a recommittal earlier today because there was a view that the vote that was recorded did not reflect the actual view of the chamber, of all of the elected representatives—which, again, is as close an approximation as we can get to the representative view of the people who elected us to be here.
The very nature of our being elected as representatives is as close an approximation as we can manage to thinking what the public might want. This is another mechanism we use. We don't know how every single coalition senator would have voted on every single piece of legislation. There is a 99 per cent chance they would have all voted the same way. But, as we know, occasionally—including even in the few weeks I have been here, on a couple of votes—coalition people have sat on opposite sides. Should we stop giving a pair to the coalition because sometimes they will vote on the opposite sides on a particular question? No, we don't, because we're trying to ensure that the chamber's decision will reflect, as closely as possible, the view of the chamber as elected by the public.
It is worth saying, with Senator Lambie, that she resigned because she believed she was ineligible. She actually hasn't been ruled ineligible yet. On her election, as far as this chamber is concerned, the decision of the High Court has not actually ruled that she is ineligible. I think this is a very significant precedent. It's particularly relevant, as Senator Wong said, for the crossbench and particularly for those who are individual, single members of a party. Senator Wong referred to Senator Harradine, an Independent. I do recall that time. But I also recall we had Senator Len Harris, who was a single, individual representative of the One Nation party for a term—I think he was elected in 1998, for that six-year term—and I remember periods when he was not here for various reasons, and he would presumably phone in his pair. I was always a bit curious as to how that process worked, because his pair seemed to often favour the government, but he wasn't here some of the time, and his pair was still recognised. We're actually starting down a path of saying, 'Well, for an individual person, if they're not here, how are we going to know how they are going to vote?' That is a very, very dangerous precedent. That's certainly not in any way a threat, and I don't speak on behalf of my own party or anybody else. I just would like to highlight that if you start to unpick the so-called logic that is trying to be applied here, or the so-called principle, it is a very dangerous one for every party, frankly.
Let's not forget that the Constitution does not recognise political parties. We are, as the High Court has demonstrated repeatedly recently, declared elected as individuals. If you actually want to break down that convention, you could just say, 'We're all a bunch of individuals. How can we ever 100 per cent guarantee how each of us are going to vote on every single question, if we're not here?' That's where this path leads, and I think it is a very dangerous one. It might work in the government's favour on this particular occasion. Again, I will say that Senator Lambie did not need to resign; she could have waited the whole way through until the High Court made its ruling. We would have had that replacement overnight. Again, what this would potentially lead to is people saying, 'I can't resign my seat, even though I know I'm not eligible, because how do I know my views will be reflected and the views of the people who elected me will be represented in this chamber on votes?'
I'd encourage the government to think about it closely, but it's particularly relevant for the crossbench and particularly those who are individual representatives of their political party. We've seen with One Nation that they vote separately quite often, or some of them vote and others don't. How can you guarantee a pair in that circumstance? Again, I'm not threatening anything. I'm just saying that, if you start using this logic, that is where it's going to lead.
I'm incredibly disappointed, in particular, that Senator Bartlett would make this contribution just now. Since the middle of July, when sadly—and I say sadly with all sincerity—former Senator Ludlam and former Senator Waters had to resign in the circumstances that we all know about, immediately and without hesitation the government said, 'Of course, we will pair their positions until such time, as through the official process, their positions are filled again on the basis that we respect that the Greens Party in the Senate will be able to determine the position of the Greens.' We've done that even though, on a number of contested issues and votes, that meant that we were in a weaker position and we were not able to get the government's agenda through. We did that absolutely in good faith, in the same way as we're doing it absolutely in good faith in relation to Senator Kakoschke-Moore on exactly the same basis.
Senator Lambie resigned. Senator Lambie didn't write to the government to formally ask for any pairing arrangements in the way this normally happens, consistent with convention. She walked into the chamber and put—
You heard her speech, Mathias.
Yes, but she came into the chamber, putting on the record a position that she expected the government to respect after she left. That is not the way this works. I will tell you something else. Senator Patrick, you might want to listen to this very carefully, because this is going to be a matter which I understand is of interest to you. As Senator Lambie was preparing to resign, because she realised that she was ineligible to sit in the chamber, she approached the government asking for the government to do a deal with her before she resigned. That was in order for us to secure her pair for this bill. You know what the government said? The government said, 'We can't negotiate with you on the basis that you have already admitted yourself that you are ineligible and that you are about to resign. We can't possibly, as a government, negotiate a vote with you in relation to that when you are no longer going to be in this chamber.'
Senator Pratt interjecting—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left, please.
What I'm putting to you is that if former Senator Lambie was still in this chamber, the government would have continued to engage with Senator Lambie and we would have been talking through the issues that she wanted to raise with us. But she is no longer here, so we weren't able to do it. Nobody in this chamber has any capacity whatsoever to identify what Senator Lambie's position would have been at the end of this process. That is the truth of it.
In terms of convention, now that the Greens sit pretty and have their representation back under control, and now that Labor are happy because the Greens, who mostly vote with them, have their full representation, we get threats that your pairs are going to be pulled when we, when it disadvantaged us, consistently respected those pairing arrangements, consistent with convention. I think it is entirely dishonourable. I think it is entirely dishonourable to suggest that pairs should be pulled against the government when all the way through when it disadvantaged us we respected, consistently, those pairing arrangements, as we continue to respect them in relation to Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
The position in relation to former Senator Lambie is quite different. Former Senator Lambie, as far as the government is concerned, did not have a concluded position.
Oh, yes, she did. Just read the Hansard.
No, she didn't. I would be prepared to swear an affidavit that on the day, minutes before she walked into this chamber, she asked for the government to do a deal with her. And we said, 'No; we can't possibly do a deal with you as you are about to resign and as you are telling us that you're not eligible to be in the Senate.' That is the reality. So we can't possibly know what her position would have been. There is absolutely no basis on which the Senate could possibly identify what her position would have been at the end of this process.
Can I say that I'm absolutely astounded that, at this stage in this debate, the government has sought to exercise precedence to prevent discussion of this issue and to try and impose its view of convention in relation to pairing. So I thought I would take a moment to share with other senators in this place some of this former government's history on pairing. I was in the Senate when Senator Dominic Foreman was denied a pair by the Howard government because it suited their purposes. And I think Senator Dominic Foreman's family and others would be pleased to have this on the record now. Fortunately at the time, Senator Harradine said, 'I will not play this game.' That's what Senator Harradine said. He said, 'I will not vote with the government if you deal with convention in that fashion.' The issue for Senator Dominic Foreman was he had a heart condition and he had medical advice that he could not fly. And this crowd would deny him a pair. So I'm not going to stand here and listen to Senator Mathias Cormann carry on about convention because I know what this crowd has been prepared to do in the past.
But let me calm down and reflect on the important issue of convention in pairing. Every senator in this place knows they don't want to end up like the other chamber. We know the consequences if you start playing games with that type of convention. We know how impossible allowing the Senate chamber to function would become were that the case. So we know these issues, we know these problems. I would suggest that the government use overnight to seriously reconsider its position on this matter.
So far we have had the government build advice from the clerks to suggest it says that, 'No; there's a different convention.' We know that advice is false. There is one precedent, as I said earlier. Remember, senators: we're not talking about an Independent senator here; we are talking about the Jacqui Lambie Network party. If Senator Cory Bernardi suggests that that party may not be a party, I haven't seen anything to reinforce that position, and none of the Tasmanian senators that I have heard from have suggested that either. I don't know if Senator Bernardi is doing a bit of recruiting here or whether he's had discussions I don't know about or has read something that I haven't seen, but we are indeed talking about the Jacqui Lambie Network party. Let me say one thing to the smaller parties or, indeed, the crossbench in this place: if you allow convention to be eroded in the way this government is attempting to do in relation to the position clearly indicated by former senator Jacqui Lambie, the same will happen to you.
We're not running a position that suits our purposes solely in relation to this bill. This is the position that Labor will take in relation to every matter that Jacqui Lambie clearly indicated in her last speech in this place. It's a position that she quite clearly indicated after she had sought advice about how best to represent her party's position in her absence and after the government refused to negotiate, as Senator Mathias Cormann just appraised us, but none of that's actually news. Former senator Jacqui Lambie sought advice on how to proceed. She followed that advice in the chamber and clearly indicated her position. I thank other senators who've made the point that this debate hasn't changed anything in the position that Jacqui Lambie indicated.
The amusing anecdote I'd add to this debate is Senator Cory Bernardi's position here. One day Senator Cory Bernardi was a member of the Liberal Party and the next day he wasn't. Are we now, following Senator Fifield's burrow, suggesting that every day we must check that every senator who is paired is still within the party that they were in when the pair application was accepted? Of course we're not saying that sort of rubbish, Senator Fifield. To suggest the extension that you have in your contribution is simply ridiculous. What it shows is the desperation of this government.
It's not the only thing that shows the desperation of this government. I'm not sure whether it occurred to any of the other senators today when they looked at the red—the number of bills that the government introduced today! Because tomorrow Senator Fifield wants to get up and say, 'We're still doing business!' We all know that is meaningless. We know that introducing a bill onto the Notice Paper does not meet any reasonable assessment of outcomes. We know this government's been bogged down. We know the problems that the current Prime Minister has. But to let all of that deteriorate into the situation we're facing now is very, very alarming.
There's about a minute and a half before we move to the adjournment. I would suggest to the government that they take the time overnight to seriously reconsider this issue and seriously consider whether they do want to maintain convention, because I was here when it deteriorated in the past. The only thing that saved the Senate on that occasion was Senator Brian Harradine saying, 'I'll take my vote back from the government unless you deal with the situation in relation to Senator Dominic Foreman with integrity.' That was the only thing that helped convention survive on that occasion.
I've now spent pretty much as much time as I'm able to talk on this debate so that we do not vote on it tonight. I would encourage another senator, if necessary, to talk for about 30 seconds to ensure that that's the case, because the government needs to seriously reconsider this issue. Your representation of convention is confected, and senators on the cross bench need to seriously consider how they want this chamber to operate in the future. (Time expired)
Progress reported.
After that long—
Tirade?
tirade—thank you, Senator Payne—from Senator Collins, it gives me great pleasure to stand up and talk about something that I think is extraordinarily important—that is, meeting the commitments that we make to the Australian people. Given that we live in an extraordinary world of alternative facts—which is probably the politest way of putting it—where public opinion trumps facts and science, it is really important that we continue to keep our promises, and deliver accountability, transparency, honesty and integrity. The only way that we're going to deal with the deficit of trust out there, that's being created by those who were quite happy to peddle in alternative facts, is by returning the trust of the Australian people through keeping our promises.
One of the great promises that have been kept in very recent times was in relation to the same-sex marriage debate. We held a survey, we asked the Australian people what they wanted, 79.5 per cent of them turned up to have their say, and we had an overwhelming response where they voted 'yes'. Last week we passed the legislation through this place, and it is downstairs at the moment. I think it is really important that we recognise the fact that it is irresponsible to ignore the mandates that are given to those in this place by the public—mandates that have often been ignored; particularly, for instance, by those opposite, who ignored the mandate that I believe that the Abbott government got when it was elected in 2013, and that was to abolish the carbon tax. The level of frustration that occurred in the period following the election in 2013—to the extent that we were not able to act on the mandate that was delivered by the people—was reprehensible. I believe that goodwill, cooperation and collaboration with the private sector are absolutely essential, as is making sure that we speak to the public, we talk to the public and we listen to the public.
What I'd like to highlight in the few minutes that I have now are some of the things that might not have been able to happen if we hadn't taken the approach, which I think is appropriate—you know the old saying, Mr Acting Deputy President: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar! A constant adversarial approach—'we've just got to oppose things for opposition's sake'—doesn't actually serve any purpose in terms of delivering good governance and outcomes for the people of Australia. In my portfolio, I take great pride in refusing to play politics. I also refuse to play politics in my role as a senator, because I believe that actually delivering the outcomes for people is far more important—for the people that I represent: as a senator, they are the people of South Australia; and in my Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio, they are, most particularly, those people in the fisheries, forestry, wine and horticulture industries, and those people who live in the Murray-Darling Basin. I believe it is much more important to listen to what they have to say and to work really hard to deliver the outcomes that they need, to benefit those people. I'm not after a headline by just saying 'no', and I'm not after a headline by playing politics; I am after delivering outcomes for the people that I represent.
It is with great pleasure that tonight I'd like to outline a few of the things that have happened in my portfolio area that have delivered positive outcomes. In the wine industry we have been delighted to be able to deliver a suite of reforms in relation to taxation and the marketing of the wine industry that have been wholeheartedly embraced by the wine industry. We listened to the industry. There were some issues on the table when I came in as the minister, but we've listened to the wine industry and we've delivered a suite of reforms which the industry has embraced. For instance, we have reformed the wine equalisation tax so that it better reflects the original intent of the policy.
In doing so, the federal government has also made available to the wine industry a $50 million package that will enable the industry to take advantage of the massive international export marketing opportunity that is on our doorstep in Asia. Included in this is an additional $10 million wine tourism cellar door package, which gives us the opportunity to say to the wine industry that we recognise the huge contribution it makes to regional Australia by its investment in its cellar doors, restaurants and cafes. Most particularly, we recognise the employment that is delivered to rural and regional Australia by the Australian wine industry.
In relation to the forestry sector, it was an absolute pleasure to have worked with a group of people who delivered the Forest Industry Advisory Council's report Transforming Australia's forest products industry: recommendations from the Forest Industry Advisory Council. Now, only a matter of 12 months after the release of that report, you can go through the 19 recommendations and see that many of them have already been ticked off and that we are well underway towards delivering the outcomes that the Australian forestry industry has asked the government to deliver. We believe that the forestry industry is a regional growth engine, so we are investing in its future. It was with great pleasure that I stood with the Prime Minister when he announced that we are going to develop a new plan that reflects the recommendations and the requests of the forestry industry in its plan to transform the sector.
We have also established a National Institute for Forest Products Innovation. Two of these hubs will be set up in Tasmania and South Australia, and we're looking forward to working with the industry to roll out more of these innovation hubs around Australia. We're looking forward to working with the forestry sector to transition their industry from an industry of the past to an industry of the future—one that is technologically advanced, responsible, sustainable, recyclable, renewable. For those who haven't heard me lately, it's also carbon positive. So, we're absolutely delighted that we are moving forward in the forestry sector.
In terms of the fisheries sector, I can also say it was an absolute delight to stand with my colleagues Veronica Papacosta and Jane Lovell when they announced the launch of Seafood Industry Australia, the new peak industry body for the commercial fishing sector. They've really hit the ground running and are doing amazing things already. This government has met another of its election commitments in recognising recreational and Indigenous fishers, and we've changed legislation to do so.
We believe that this is a shared resource. There are many stakeholders, and not any one stakeholder should have a greater say. We are working with the recreational and Indigenous fishing sectors to make sure that they too can have their say and make their contributions to the development of fisheries policy in Australia. We were delighted to work with the recreational fishing sector to put on 'gone fishing' days, so that we can let the young people of Australia understand what a fantastic pastime going fishing is and let them know there's something more to life than perhaps playing on their PlayStation or their Xbox.
We also take our responsibilities in the international fisheries sector very seriously. We work, particularly with Pacific island countries, to make sure that we have sustainable fisheries in the international space. Many of our very important fisheries are international fisheries, so we are catching the same fish that they are catching in Vanuatu, Niue and the Marshall Islands, as well as Indonesia, Japan and many other places. It was with great pleasure that I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vietnamese government so that we can work with them to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and promote sustainable fisheries, which both our governments are very keen to do.
From a fisheries perspective we have a very proud record of delivering on the promises we went to the Australian people with. We have also put out the Commonwealth fisheries policy statement, which places a strong emphasis on balance and sustainability. It is a statement of Australia's sovereignty over its fisheries, recognising that these fish, our fisheries and our marine environment are owned by all Australians and that no one sector, whether in Australia or overseas, can claim a greater victory. These are shared resources, and they must be managed accordingly.
We've also delivered our national agriculture strategy, and early in the new year we will be delivering our Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Fisheries Bycatch Policy, once again delivering on the promises that we took to the Australian people. In the horticulture area we've delivered the new horticultural code of conduct, which sees a much better balance between the responsibilities of the markets and the growers to make sure that we have security for everybody going into the future.
Finally, in the water sector, despite all of the hoo-ha and the carry-on that we've heard in this place, I'd like to advise the chamber that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is on target to deliver its projected targets for 2019. With the approval through this place of the two amendments—one at the moment and one early in the New Year—we will be able to deliver our 2,750 by 2019. It is a great news story. We have delivered. (Time expired)
As the parliamentary year draws to a close we all feel tension rising and tempers fraying, but there are important issues at play in this place. The differences between Labor and the coalition are quite stark on the issue of workers' rights. There are a range of issues that hang off that. We on this side of the chamber stand up for the dignity and the rights of workers to get a fair go. The great legacy of the Australian Labor Party in this country—over more than 100 years of institutionalising the concept of a fair go into our systems across the board—is to even up the bargaining position between workers and employers, which is part of the framework that we're very proud to stand behind; to have opportunities for collective bargaining so that workers can get a fair rate of pay for the work that they perform; to have appropriate compensation for time spent working away from families on weekends; and to have a superannuation system that continues to afford dignity and quality of life in retirement. Those are the sorts of issues that we on this side of the chamber have been fighting for recently.
When it comes to the coalition's position, it's quite clear they do not support workers' rights; in fact, they seek to erode them at every turn. On the issue of penalty rates—and we know what's happened there—this government is happy to stand by and do nothing while cuts to penalty rates occur. Going back some time, I think the coalition will stand forever condemned for introducing Work Choices. That will be an indelible stain on the industrial relations record of the coalition. More recently we've seen the Heydon royal commission. They jumped at the chance to investigate unions through that royal commission but then ran a protection racket for the last few years over the big banks. The coalition is all about creating an easy-to-hire, easy-to-fire-type of culture.
I am a proud unionist. The Labor Party—being created, of course, by the union movement—shares many objectives of the union movement, none more important than fair rights for workers. That is fundamentally where we're coming from. That's what's motivated me throughout my working life, in my former role with the SDA and now in this place. I will always stand up for workers' rights through my work as a senator for Queensland and through my work on the Standing Committee on Economics as well as other committees.
This week we stood up again for workers on the issue of superannuation and penalty rates. Firstly, on the issue of superannuation: what started out as a clandestine secret government war on the trade union movement, worker outcomes and superannuation became a full-throttled attack through bills introduced in the Senate. Labor called the government out and eventually the crossbench caught on, and we appreciate the support we've received there. Then we saw the government spit the dummy when it was clear that they couldn't pass the bills—because they had an ideological agenda, not a policy agenda.
Government is disappointed that the trade union royal commission didn't destroy the union movement, as they had hoped. It does disappoint me on a regular basis to see, particularly, Senator Cash's attack on the union movement through the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. But I also note that those attacks have backfired spectacularly with former ABCC boss Nigel Hadgkiss being found guilty of breaching the Fair Work Act and with the Federal Police investigation over the AWU raids.
When the government failed in these areas, they tried another angle. They started to attack the union movement on the battleground of superannuation. But Labor won the battle, with the withdrawal of the superannuation bills from the debate. These bills would have seen the successful employer-employee representation on industry boards disrupted. They could have removed the need for that equal representation on boards, a system of governance which has served the occupational superannuation industry extremely well, and, most particularly, the members of those industry superannuation funds have benefitted from the governance arrangements. These bills would have increased the regulatory burden on MySuper products while giving those offering choice products—often the big banks—a leave pass. These bills would have done little to address the issue of nonpayment of the superannuation guarantee while disrupting collective decision-making about superannuation fund selection.
When it comes to superannuation, workers can rely on Labor to deliver for them. It's Labor and the union movement that have established the superannuation sector, with $2.3 trillion in assets now across the industry. Labor and the union movement have a proud history of establishing industry, or profit-to-member, funds. We see capital and labour at the same table, working together to get the best outcomes for workers. It's no wonder, when the coalition see that cooperation and collaboration, they want to disrupt it. It's something they see as being untenable. Labor will continue to stand up on those issues.
I also make reference to the issue of corporate tax, another area this year where we've been able to stand up for workers. Let's be clear: when multinationals don't pay their fair share of tax, the tax burden falls on ordinary workers, who pay that price through increased taxes and through decreased government spending on health and education. We know this government is increasing the tax burden on ordinary Australians. The PBO's recent report, Changes in average personal income tax rates: distributional impacts, shows that the average tax rate for individuals in every quintile is set to increase from 2017-18 to 2021-22. The largest increase in average tax rates is expected for people in the middle-income quintile earning just $46,000. Average tax rates on middle-income earners are expected to rise to 20-plus-year highs. We also know that, despite the government's recent comments proposing an income tax cut before the next election—another thought bubble—they have legislation to increase the Medicare levy and they dropped the budget repair levy, giving tax cuts to millionaires while increasing the tax burden for ordinary income earners.
What we really need from this government is action on multinational tax avoidance. As Chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, I can advise that we are inquiring into the issue. The committee recently extended the reporting date on that inquiry, and there has been agreement to examine ExxonMobil's arrangements. We know that Exxon is using the Fair Work Act to cut the conditions of workers, but we need to know what it's doing in the corporate tax space as well. I have been particularly concerned to learn that the new agreement that UGL is attempting to strike cuts wages by 30 per cent or more, cuts annual leave entitlements, cuts allowances, cuts workers' shift loadings and introduces new standdown clauses that would see employees at work but unpaid. Now that we see reports Exxon is using tax havens such as the Bahamas and has corporate arrangements in the Netherlands, that's another area of concern. We know that Exxon is not paying corporate tax at a time of record gas prices in Australia. That troubles me and I'd like to get to the bottom of it.
We're seeing reports that the ATO has not approved Exxon's tax filings for over a decade. We'll see what the stakeholders have to say on this matter during our further hearing, but let me be clear: it's important that corporate tax avoidance is dealt with wherever it is found. We'll stand up to the government on corporate tax to make sure that workers no longer foot the bill for the big business protection racket. This week we stood up for penalty rates as well, and I was so proud to see that our amendment to reverse the cuts to penalty rates and to protect penalty rates in the future successfully passed the Senate. But it's no surprise that the government voted against protecting penalty rates, because they support wage cuts for 700,000 workers. At a time when wage growth is flatlining and even the Treasurer understands that low-wage growth is the greatest single threat to the economy, we need to see the protection of workers' entitlements rather than further attacks on workers' entitlements. Inequality is at a 75-year high. Australia is at the crossroads as to how it uses government policy, and the differences between Labor and the coalition couldn't be clearer.
The Army's 22 Engineer Regiment started life as 22nd Construction Regiment in 1950. As the name implies, it built things. 22 Construction Regiment was a unit of the Australian Army Reserve. It had some part-time soldiers and some full-time soldiers mixed in to share their skills and experience. There was nothing unusual about that.
According to Defence, in 1999 and 2000, there were 588 fraud investigations in the ADF, of which 503 were completed. You might ask, 'What has that got to do with the 22 Construction Regiment? Well, 22 Construction Regiment had developed into an interesting unit within our Army Reserve, and it required investigating. A lot of the soldiers who were enlisted into 22 Construction Regiment were union members getting their construction skills at the taxpayers' expense. That's okay if they are undertaking tasks for the benefit of the Army. That wouldn't be a problem, if that's where it ended, but it didn't.
Enter Captain Bill McAuley. Bill was posted to 22 Construction Regiment after a brief career in the Navy. In 22 Construction Regiment, Bill was the quartermaster or QM. The QM is the person who is responsible for all the hardware. In a construction unit that includes tools, construction supplies and the like. Bill was a decent man and an efficient man. For those who had nefarious plans in mind, he was an inconvenient man. Bill was sent away from the unit for extended periods so that stores could be stolen without oversight from the QM, but that wasn't all. Not satisfied just to have him out of the way, his career was trashed to ensure he stayed quiet. The people who shut him down are still in the ADF today, occupying positions of power. They keep the lid on the truth and they work within a group of mates who look after each other.
Bill was featured on a hate website called ANZMI, which is run anonymously by a group of vigilantes who trash the reputations of people they decide they don't like. Bill has received an apology from the ADF for the suffering he experienced, but his profile is still on the ANZMI website. You see, they rarely update their website when they are wrong. They hound people to the bitter end—by that I mean suicide.
The publisher of the ANZMI website was recently identified by a former Queensland police officer who has spent over $150,000 of his own money trying to shut them down before anyone else is driven to suicide by their vile campaigns. Another is obtaining a personal protection order on advice of Queensland police. Three other victims serving in the Western Australian Police Force have lodged complaints with the WA police. You might think that is enough for one Army Reserve unit, but wait, there's more.
In November 1996, the Army sent a major to 22 Construction Regiment to investigate the so-called phantom soldiers of the unit. The term 'phantom soldiers' refers to fake data being created to fool the Army into paying wages and allowances for soldiers who don't exist. Records are submitted for payment, but the money goes to the perpetrators of the scam. In those days, Reserve units kept their own records. They were not centralised like the rest of the Army. The major did a great job and reported to her superiors—180 phantom soldiers had been identified.
The major had become an inconvenient woman. So she too was shut down by the very same people who trashed Bill McAuley's career. Those same people continue to serve on to senior officer status, including in the same legal office that wrote the deed of settlement for both Bill McAuley and the major that sought to prevent them from speaking out about their treatment. The major spoke out. In doing so, she attracted the interest of a celebrity media journalist who arranged to meet her. In the following two years he wrote embarrassingly positive articles on her persistent commitment to the role of exposing the phantom soldiers at 22 Construction Regiment.
All seemed to be going well for the woman who was being vindicated for her honesty in dealing with the damage done to her career and her life. That is, until a celebrity journalist decided there was more to it than a professional relationship. She owed him. He had groomed her for two years before he decided to close in for what he really wanted from her. In her police statement about the sexual assault she endured when she rejected his advances, she characterized his behaviour as 'Jekyll and Hyde'. He was all wine and roses until she said no, and then he became aggressive and nasty. She fought back via the legal process, but he used his considerable media skills to defeat her in the only way he could—trial by media in the court of public opinion.
She had two choices: fight on and potentially lose everything or make a tactical withdrawal. The confession that was aired in the national media was made under duress to save her home and her sanity. In their time together, he promised to help her with charity work to help our veterans, but all the proceeds of the venture were deposited into his accountant's trust account for his personal gain. Not a cent went to the aid of our veterans. Yes, he's a thief and a fraud.
Enter the trolls who followed the media personality and decided it wasn't enough that the major 'got away' with only saying sorry when all she was doing was attempting to recover original documents from him. They started creating waves of fake social media accounts in the major's name and trolling innocent people to discredit her to all and sundry. It almost destroyed her life, making it impossible to get a job or establish relationships with people, especially once they heard the background and saw the link to the celebrity and her 'sorry' message. Don't forget that it was he who sexually assaulted her.
It was easy to believe the journalist's side of the story. He had a huge media profile and was taken at face value by lots of people who knew no better; she had nothing. But she wasn't entirely alone. On a visit to Uluru to do a story on Halley's Comet, the celebrity journalist attacked another woman who said no. She reported the attack to Victoria Police, who declined to take any further action because she lived in another state, despite the journalist living in Melbourne. They probably didn't want to rock the boat because of his celebrity. I've seen her police statement. She described the journalist's behaviour as being like Jekyll and Hyde, to characterize the difference between when he was chatting her up and what happened when she said no—and she's never met the major or spoken to her. Just like we've seen in the recent matter of Don Burke and others, as soon as one brave woman speaks out, others are more likely to come forward.
But it's not just the trolls, like Lisa Hay, Geoffrey Robinson, Debra Duncan and Josephine Bloor, who attack mostly innocent people to pander to a celebrity. The media are just as gullible. Fairfax Media have demonstrated this year that they will blindly, and perhaps maliciously, publish false information about people if they think it will not only sell copy but perhaps gain favour from a celebrity who is one of them, a journalist. They print lies in spite of being given facts. They push a barrow that has been constructed by those with an agenda that the media are too gullible to see past. They allow themselves to be used, because they don't have the skill or intellect to discern that they are being played by an expert.
All you have to do is read some of the material written by Adam Gartrell, Lisa Visentin or James Robertson. It is mostly rubbish that has not been fact-checked—lies published when the truth has been available. That is both unethical and dishonest, yet their industry lauds them as being good journalists. I bet they won't like it when the shoe's on the other foot and they are being pilloried in a national forum for their conduct. The only difference is that what I am saying is true.
Over the past year, I have worked with the major. I've seen her perform tasks with total dedication and efficiency. She's incredibly resourceful. I've seen evidence that her detractors would hate to admit—that she's been the victim of all of their misguided efforts. I've seen the evidence that she and Bill McAuley were falsely victimized because of what they were doing at the 22nd Construction Regiment. I've seen how a media celebrity attempted to destroy the major when she didn't fall under his spell—just as the woman at Uluru experienced. The trolls and the media piled on. This media celebrity is a sexual predator who proudly publishes, in books about himself, that he has had underage girls for the night, yet claims to live to expose paedophiles. He is not someone to be proud of and he's not someone to aspire to be like. He deserves your disgust, not your respect.
I rise tonight to talk about the importance of regional airports to communities across Western Australia and Australia. Regional airports are the vital link of many communities to health services, to loved ones, to education, to jobs, to business opportunities and to leading the sorts of lives and accessing the sorts of services that many in urban areas take for granted. There are some 2,000 landing strips in rural and regional Australia, 360,000 flights per year and around 25 per cent of the total number of flights are to regional Australia. Fifteen million passengers access these services every year. There are huge challenges to be faced by regional airports, particularly the smaller airports. Costs of maintenance are high and increasing. Passenger and flight numbers do not always increase at the same rate. Costs for airports are estimated to increase by over 40 per cent over the next 10 years. Many airports have ageing infrastructure. Some infrastructure dates from World War II. These are the unique challenges of regional areas.
Regular air services into smaller regional communities bring huge benefits. They bring enhanced access to health services. There are more than 6,000 patient transfers and 6,000 emergency evacuations every year. They bring access to educational services, to business and to recreational opportunities. They bring economic development and they bring tourism. They enable older Australians to remain in their local community yet be part of the wider community. They obviously provide critical access and support in times of natural disaster.
The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee recently commenced an inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities, with particular reference to the social and economic impacts of air route supply and airfare pricing; different legal, regulatory, policy and pricing frameworks and practices across the Commonwealth, states and territories; how airlines determine fair pricing; the determination of airport charges for landing and security fees, aircraft type, customer demand; as well as a range of other matters.
Recently, I was lucky enough to be at the Norseman airstrip with the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson. The Shire of Dundas intended to upgrade Norseman airstrip to allow the RFDS to land in all weather—not possible at present. If there was too much rain, the airstrip had to be closed down. The plan was to raise the airstrip, I believe, around a metre and, by doing so, enable the RFDS to land there throughout the year. This is an airstrip that is basically used by people travelling the Nullarbor. Obviously, it also helps the locals, but this is an emergency airstrip, largely used in the situation of traffic accidents. Two hundred and fifty thousand tonnes of rock was donated by a nearby mine to enable the construction and lift the airstrip by a metre.
The state Labor McGowan government wanted to charge the shire $182,500 in royalties on this rock—rock that was donated to the Shire of Dundas. The minister, Bill Johnston, said in a letter, 'I do not believe there are special circumstances that would warrant a royalty rebate in this situation.' So, no royalty rebate—$182,500 for a small regional shire to upgrade an airstrip that is used primarily for emergency services. The local member, the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, demonstrating what an outstanding local member he is, worked with government to help secure local residents and travellers access to those essential air services by gaining access to money to pay that royalty. I congratulate Rick Wilson for doing so.
There have also been a number of other regional air services funded by the government: the Walpole airport has had upgrades to its runways of $75,000; Ravensthorpe has had resealing of its runways, aprons and taxiways of just under $270,000; and Derby has had around $5 million under the National Stronger Regions Fund. We also heard recently of a private sector voluntary concession from Qantas for residents around seven airports in northern Western Australia—and that's thanks to the wonderful work of the member for Durack, Melissa Price. I encourage all those across regional Western Australia who have a clear interest in ensuring vital air links into their communities to submit to the Senate inquiry.
Senate adjourned at 19:54