I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018. This bill imposes a new layer of regulation and supervision on the banking sector, overseen by APRA. Its purpose, as stated by the Treasurer in his second reading speech, is to ensure that where community expectations of accountability and integrity of banking directors and executives are not met, appropriate consequences will follow. As a Liberal Democrat I am opposed to this. It is not a legitimate exercise of government to seek to ensure particular businesses meet community expectations. This is a matter for the market. The bill makes no provision for discovering or addressing community expectations. The only expectations to be met are those held by APRA. The bill will not prevent a repeat of the problems in the banking sector examined during the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's five-week inquiry. The bill will have no impact on the manner in which banks serve their customers. APRA will become a de facto additional board of directors with a supervisory role in the appointment of senior executives, their responsibilities and their remuneration.
Of particular concern are section 37C and section 37CA, which require banks and accountable persons to take reasonable steps to prevent matters from arising that would adversely affect the ADI's prudential standing or prudential reputation. APRA will have complete discretion, with no reference to community or any other external standards, to determine whether a bank is complying with this. The only consideration will be its own view of prudential standing and reputation. APRA will have the authority to disqualify a person from acting as an accountable person, depriving them of their ability to remain employed. While an affected person will be able to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, this amounts to a reversal of the onus of proof.
The bill requires banks to defer the remuneration of accountable persons for a period of up to four years, with policies that allow for a reduction in remuneration for failure to meet BEAR obligations. The bill also gives APRA the power to direct a bank with respect to the allocation of management responsibilities. These are extraordinary intrusions into the management of a private sector business by public servants. The merits of deferred remuneration are contested in management theory, and entrenching the policy in law amounts to significant overreach by the government. It also amounts to serious conceit to believe that APRA has the expertise to direct a bank as to how to allocate its responsibilities. The cost of complying with the legislation is likely to drive small ADIs from the market and reduce competition. This is likely to adversely affect consumer choice. The bill will increase executive risk, potentially making it more difficult and expensive for banks operating in Australia to recruit talented personnel. This has the potential to adversely affect the international competitiveness of the Australian banking sector.
Finally, the intended date on which the bill is to take effect, 1 July, is absurd given the far-reaching implications for the banks and even the time APRA will need to figure out what it thinks are community standards. If there are failures in the banking sector that are not being addressed by current regulations or market factors, this bill will do nothing to address them. The Liberal Democrats are committed to the principles of a free market unshackled from government intrusion. This BEAR is nothing but a bill with a sore head. It cannot be amended to make it useful, and I will therefore be opposing it entirely.
I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018. Labor isn't against this bill and won't stand in its way. In fact, the bill is a welcome move, an acknowledgement from the other side that the market can't sort everything out and that there is a proper role for government in making sure that the financial sector serves the interests of everyday Australians. There's a need for our banking executives to take responsibility for the scandals and the rip-offs that have occurred. However, I am concerned that this bill doesn't go far enough; it's light on policy and heavy on politics.
This measure was announced on budget night last year and was used by the likes of the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services to hold off calls for a banking royal commission—and we know how that worked out. We saw the world's biggest backflip last year. At ten minutes to midnight the Prime Minister and Treasurer were finally brought kicking and screaming to accepting a royal commission. But even then it was only after the big banks twisted their arms. The long-awaited acknowledgement that we need a royal commission is a strong indication that this bill doesn't go nearly far enough to changing the culture in the big banks. In fact, the policy process of this bill and the royal commission seem to show that the government is still running its protection racket for the big banks. More has to be done with changing the culture, and I welcome the royal commission, particularly on behalf of those everyday consumers and small businesses who endured rip-off after rip-off while the banks rode roughshod over all and sundry.
Of course, I note that the royal commission has commenced communications with the banks. I won't pre-empt its next steps, but I must point out that consumers are ready and willing to give evidence, and the sooner the process through which that can happen is made public the better the level of public confidence and the sooner we can begin to put to bed some of the recent banking scandals. In the meantime, I note that the ACTU and Choice are gathering submissions via their websites to submit to the royal commission. Consumers who have a story to tell may like to visit www.actu.org.au or https://campaigns.choice.com.au/royalcommissionbanks.
In terms of the bill itself, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, of which I'm the deputy chair, conducted the inquiry into this legislation, and you can believe me when I say that this bill is no substitute for a banking royal commission. As Choice said in its submission to the inquiry, what we've got is a bit of a teddy bear, when what Australia really needs, in the way of banking reform, is a grizzly bear. This is what Labor told the government for 601 days, and finally they got the message. But they haven't got the message about the flaws in the BEAR legislation, and I will outline some of the key concerns now.
The first thing to mention about this bill is that it seems that the Treasurer has hand-picked another element of the UK system without the supporting structure. I want to make it known to senators that the UK reviewed their own regulatory arrangements after the global financial crisis, and that resulted in the Senior Manager and Certification Regime, or SMCR. A number of stakeholders to the inquiry praised the UK approach, in which they took a holistic view and took their time to properly consult and develop their accountability regime. In contrast, the BEAR is not holistic; nor was the proper time given to consult—far from it. The UK harmonised their regulatory framework, making sure that the prudential regulator and the conduct authority were able to competently handle both prudential and non-prudential matters. The UK reforms ensured that there were no regulatory gaps and that regulatory responsibility was clear. As Choice succinctly put it:
Our take generally is that the UK system has been really constructive—that it has involved both regulators working together to define the limits of powers for each one and make sure that there aren't gaps. Because this was developed in tandem it just means that you don't end up with those awkward gaps between regimes that can happen when you split regulatory powers between a prudential and a consumer regulator.
Yet here we have a bill that talks only about APRA and says nothing about ASIC's powers. The Treasurer has again botched the policy process. He tried to copy the UK's approach, and he couldn't get it right. He is clearly out of his depth.
There's much more I can say on this matter, but it's clear that Australia should follow the UK's approach and conduct a holistic review of the banking and financial services sector. The government's royal commission could have gone closer to doing this very thing if the opposition had been properly consulted. That way we could have had a bipartisan set of recommendations that complemented and enhanced each other. It's my view that taking that teamwork approach would have given the public the highest level of confidence that the real problems in the industry would be properly dealt with. But of course we know that the Prime Minister is not big on teamwork. The very way in which he was dragged kicking and screaming to the royal commission is evidence of this fact, with the Nationals having to finally break ranks to get him over the line. And we saw a bizarre situation of a divided coalition and a divided government, with the likes of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, both Liberals, resisting calls for an inquiry—quite unsuccessfully, as we now know—whilst the Nationals members finally found their voice and a desire to hold the banks to account.
As welcome as it was to see the Nationals coming to their senses, let us not forget that it was very late in the day. I don't think that should be forgotten when we look back on this debate, because the Nationals sat back for almost 600 days and let the very farmers they purport to represent get ripped off by the banks. I've lost count of the number of stories I've heard about farmers losing everything when the banks moved in. And, while the Nationals sat back in Queensland, where was 'Team Queensland'? Labor was leading the charge, standing up for farmers in rural and regional Queensland who had been mistreated by the banks. And while Senator O'Sullivan finally found his voice to stand up for Queenslanders on financial reform—and I commend him for that—where, might I ask, was the federal member for Maranoa?
We've read a lot in the media about Mr Littleproud since he replaced Mr Chester in the ministry. We know that he has a background in banking and that he prides himself on the number of farmers' kitchen tables he has sat around. Surely then, he's heard some stories about banking misconduct and the impact on our farmers. But we weren't reading in the media then about any calls for a royal commission from the member for Maranoa. No, like most of his colleagues he remained silent, not wanting to rock the Prime Minister's boat, no matter how many banking scandals came to light. No, the National Party is no real friend of the bush.
On the issue of scandals, the explanatory memorandum cites six scandals set out in the Coleman report to justify this bill. I quote from the EM:
The Coleman Report referred to a number of instances where participants in the financial sector have been treated inappropriately by banks and other related financial institutions:
• the provision of poor financial advice at NAB;
• the mishandling of life insurance claims at CommInsure;
• NAB’s failure to pay 62,000 wealth management customers the amount that they were owed;
• the poor administration of hardship support at CBA;
• ANZ’s OnePath improperly collecting millions of dollars in fees from hundreds of thousands of customers; and
• ANZ improperly collecting fees from 390,000 accounts that had not been properly disclosed.
Yet with the very simple question of: 'Would this bill have prevented this scandal or would it have triggered the BEAR's penalties?', both APRA and Treasury were unable to give a definitive yes. APRA said, 'In the course of our inquiry we cannot definitely say what the outcome would be.' And Treasury said, 'I don't think Treasury is in a position to do an analysis and to look back as to whether a law would have applied in particular circumstances.'
It seems very strange that the government seeks to use these scandals to justify the passage of this bill when it's far from clear that this bill would have made a meaningful difference. Much of this legislation's reform success also hinges on how APRA will define prudential. This bill limits APRA's remit to prudential standing and prudential reputation, and there are many concerns that the scandals I mentioned previously would not have triggered anything in the BEAR, as the scandals which ripped off ordinary customers were not at a level to threaten the prudential standing of the bank. The Consumer Action Law Centre said:
We've one clear ask of the committee, and that is to give this BEAR real teeth. Treasury has restricted the application of the proposed BEAR so that it will apply to poor conduct or behaviour that is of a systemic and prudential nature. This misses the crucial element of the United Kingdom model that ties accountability measures to poor consumer outcomes, not just prudential matters.
In fairness to the public servants, I understand the difficulty in advising on the impacts of legislation had it been in place during the time that the events occurred. However, when you consider that both Treasury and APRA can give no promises that the BEAR legislation would have made a difference and that the government clearly decided to limit the BEAR's remit to prudential matters, no-one can be blamed for just being a tad cynical about the approach of this government and whether this bill will actually match its tough talk.
I want to talk a little about the fact that the consultation process on this bill was extremely rushed. This is something that stakeholders have picked up on during the course of our inquiry. We did have quite a diverse group of stakeholders. Firstly, you had the Bankers' Association saying:
The seven day consultation period announced by the Federal Government on new banking executive accountability laws is grossly inadequate and playing fast and loose with a critical sector of the economy.
You would expect the ABA to make those comments. You had the Governance Institute of Australia in its Treasury submission putting it in much more polite terms:
Due to the comprehensive nature of the proposed legislative regime and the timeframe given to provide a submission, we have not responded to each of the detailed questions set out in the consultation paper but have confined our comments to the following issues.
The obvious question here is: what did they and others have to leave out? During the inquiry, Dr Wardrop and Dr Wishart said that, in fact, their views about it changed depending on the time they had to look at it. Also, their comments about some words used imply, without stating directly, they might be the result of the swift development process of the bill.
But, if you don't want to take their word for it, just see what the Prime Minister's own department said. The Office of Best Practice Regulation made it quite clear. The OBPR considered that to only provide one week for affected stakeholders to consider and comment on draft legislation was a significant departure from best practice. So we have a Treasurer out of his depth, playing fast and loose with policy development. The Finance Sector Union has also raised concerns about the bill and about the disjoint in the accountability regimes. We now face the situation of having the BEAR in place, a possible ASIC senior managers ban and the Australian Bankers' Association's conduct background check for frontline workers. There are three schemes and there seems to be no acknowledgement from the government that this is an issue and that we need to consider the overlap or gaps that might exist. For example, the FSU made it clear that these arrangements are inequitable, particularly the fact that executives would have an appeals process under the BEAR while frontline workers would have no appeal mechanism under the ABA conduct background check.
As a starting point, the ABA should introduce an appeals mechanism. Further, what really needs to be considered, in my opinion, is an accountability scheme that doesn't create a cultural divide between frontline workers and executives. Again, this is just typical of the piecemeal approach the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have brought to reform in the financial services sector for so long when what we really need is a holistic approach—something that a proper royal commission can bring.
Coming back to consultation, the explanatory memorandum mentions that the major banks met with the government in February last year, before the announcement in May, discussing the accountability gaps. We have media reports that Mr Gonski was instrumental in gaining an appeal mechanism in the BEAR as a concession. However, the small and medium ADIs were not afforded similar early access to policy discussion or concessions. The Customer Owned Banking Association raised concerns about the additional regulatory work that needs to be done alongside other reforms underway, often implemented by the same small teams in the banks. The Treasurer talks big talk about standing up for the smaller banks, but the reality is that he is still standing up for the major banks. The royal commission is the icing on the cake. It says everything about the Prime Minister and his Treasurer that he only agreed to Labor's royal commission when the banks told him they had to.
The government has always been on the side of the banks. I'm still a bit cynical and a bit concerned that the government's protection racket for the banks isn't over yet. But there has been some good news for the small and medium ADIs. Labor has lobbied hard for an amendment to this bill: to delay the start date by 12 months to ease the burden on small and medium ADIs and to give them appropriate time to prepare. I understand that the Treasurer has finally followed Labor's lead on this and Labor's amendment has passed the House of Representatives. I also note the Treasurer chose to support Labor over the chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to make this happen. That was one of the recommendations in the Labor senators' additional comments report. I congratulate Mr Morrison on recognising when Labor has policy right and admitting, through that amendment, that the Liberals got it wrong. I'm proud that Labor is once again supporting small businesses—small banks in this case—and making their lives a little bit easier.
I note from the inquiry that the Customer Owned Banking Association made it very clear to us that the regulatory compliance burden is a critical factor. They made it clear that, in fact, regulatory compliance is a competitive advantage that the major banks have because they have vastly greater resources and capacity than smaller competitors to cope with the new regulatory obligations. So I want to make it very clear that we support that change to help out small businesses.
I will conclude my speech where I started and indicate that Labor will not stand in the way of this bill, but it is, as I said, disappointing to see that, once again, we have a Treasurer releasing substandard legislation. This bill was more of a political fix for the Treasurer, but, day by day, week by week, we saw the fix unravel. This bill couldn't stop the government calling a banking royal commission. Labor knew this bill was a political fix. Government senators in the inquiry saw the problems and shortcomings with the bill, and comments from other government backbenchers made it clear that the bill was no substitute for a royal commission. We've heard this legislation described as a 'teddy bear'—and who doesn't like a teddy bear? So I will support the bill, but, importantly, Labor fully recognises that the consultation process was inadequate and that the transition time will disadvantage smaller operators. So we have sought an amendment to delay the start date to help small and medium ADIs. I hope that the Prime Minister and Treasurer continue to follow Labor's lead in making this improvement. This bill is a baby step and I conclude by reiterating: it is the royal commission that will really deliver the much-needed change in this sector.
Finally, while I have the floor, I hope that the government is taking note of the calls in the media this week that action is urgently needed for improved consumer protection laws around payday lending. These laws, which the government has been dragging its feet on, are needed to prevent another financial crisis affecting Australian families. The Turnbull government has a lot to answer for because it's a government that's, for far too long, stuck its head in the sand on financial reform.
The system we live under and work under is rigged, and the banks are a big part of the problem. The economy works for the rich and this bill does nothing to change that. Big bank CEOs are the flag-bearers of this rigged system. These CEOs fail to protect their customers, they fail to properly manage financial risks and they fail to report changes and where they've gone against the law. Time and time again, these CEOs are letting the public down. They fleece the public with excessive fees and other charges, all to boost their profits. That's what's going on here. While there are complexities in the system, on one level it's very simple: it's about boosting profits.
The annual pay packets of the CEOs of the banks illustrate that so effectively. I will put on record what they are to illustrate how out of control the system is and the depth of failure of the bill currently before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018. CBA CEO Ian Narev received a $12.3 million salary package in 2016, off a base salary of $2.65 million—an absolute shame. NAB's Andrew Thorburn received a $6.7 million salary package, off a base salary of $2.4 million. ANZ's Shayne Elliott received $5.07 million, off a base salary of $2.1 million. Westpac's Brian Hartzer received $6.7 million, off a base salary of $2.8 million. Macquarie's Nicholas Moore received $18.7 million, off a base salary of $818,000. The system is deeply broken. I said it's rigged—it's just rotten to the core. Why is the essence of this whole system about profits? It is because that is how the CEOs make their money. It's not about how they treat customers or if they're helping to make housing more affordable, ensuring young people can get a start in life or assisting people to get loans for their small businesses. That's not how they're judged. It's all about the massive profits they're making, and that's what flows through to these obscene wages—and that's what should be dealt with here today.
And these profits are obscene. In 2015, Australian banks made the highest profits anywhere in the world as a share of GDP. The privilege the banks have in this country because of the way the government runs the system should be what we're dealing with here, because the way the banks are run—the extreme salaries that these CEOs take home—is driving the inequality in this country. It's getting much larger, and I will come back to it. This issue of wages and salaries is right in the news at the moment because wages for the majority of people in this country have stalled. In the meantime we have an opportunity with this legislation here to do something about the super-rich, and nothing is being delivered.
As I said, the key issue the government should deal with is excessive bank CEO salaries. CEOs should be judged to be doing a good job and should be paid more if shareholders are gaining more returns because of banks' high profits. That's the basis of the very sick system we're living in at the moment and we need to change how banking executives are paid. The bill barely covers that key aspect—why? It doesn't cover that key aspect because the Liberals and the Nationals are mates. This is actually a class system here: the Nationals and the Liberals are looking after their class. They're looking after the very rich. They're out to protect them. That's why they're just nibbling around the edges.
This legislation has come before us because the government does at least note that there is outrage amongst the public about what is going on and about how out of touch so many banks are with their needs. The salaries are excessive, but they won't actually deal with them. Why don't they deal with them? Because they're mates—they'll probably have to get a job with them one day. It is a really sick system when you have a government that is there to advance privilege and not use the power and the responsibility it has to make our society more equal and more fair. So, as I said, it's not surprising that the bill before us barely touches on the issue of salary.
If this legislation goes through in its current form, CEOs can continue to pay themselves these huge amounts of money because their salaries are linked to the profit basis of their banks. It also illustrates the closeness of the major parties to the banks. Why the major parties are soft on the banks is the issue of political donations. I will come to the fact that recently—and, again, because they were getting such a bad name for themselves—some of the banks did come out with a position: 'We're not going to take donations anymore.' You need to look at the 'anymore' closely.
But, firstly, let's look at the culture that has been around for many years. In 2013-14 and 2014-15, the four big banks gave $1.3 million in political donations to the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor over those two financial years, with the bulk of it going to the Liberals and the Nationals. That again is a very unhealthy culture. It's said, 'We just want to be able to talk to people,' or 'We want to help the democratic process.' That's what some of the big CEOs have said. But, again, it is part of the corrupting culture that is really turning people off how politics works in this country.
Now, I do acknowledge that the National Australia Bank, in 2016, announced it would stop giving money to political parties. That decision is a remarkable turnaround and it's a good turnaround—I certainly acknowledge that. It is an important turnaround and a reminder why the Turnbull government should get its act together and bring in some electoral funding law that limits, bans or puts strict caps on all corporate donations.
I will put on the record what the National Australia Bank had been doing just before it changed its position. It had given more than $500,000 to the major parties over three years, and it also sponsored a major fundraiser for Liberal frontbencher Kelly O'Dwyer in her re-election campaign for the seat of Higgins. It's interesting that the bank was right there, in a very generous way, up to the point it made its decision. But its decision isn't watertight. The NAB's manifesto actually still allows for there to be exceptions to what appears to be a strict policy. Political donations can still be made, but they need to be cleared by the board of directors.
But, at any rate, I still congratulate NAB. They've taken that position, and other banks are also moving in that direction. But I go back to the position that for a long time there's been this culture of closeness, of attending the big, fancy, expensive fundraisers and giving generously, particularly to the Liberals and Nationals. That creates an unhealthy culture. It's a culture that's been identified in a High Court case about political donations that I've spoken about many times in the House, and I will continue to do so, because it identified that with political donations it's not just about quid pro quo—giving money and expecting something in return. It's about the damaging influence this money has on how the legislators, the politicians in this place, operate. They start to, maybe subconsciously—who knows; I'm not one of them—adjust their culture to deliver for the big donors. So, if there's legislation, maybe we should think about how that works for that sector that we spend a lot of time with.
The corrupting influence of political donations is well on the record, and I believe it's part of what's going on here—that there is a closeness between the major parties and in this case the big banks, the big donors, so that they don't really do the job properly. A proper job would be taking on the CEOs and limiting their salary. It infuriates people. These salaries are now publicly known. People are insulted when they hear about how much money these CEOs effectively award to themselves—millions and millions of dollars—and it is a driver of inequality. Inequality is bad for the economy, it's bad for our society and it's so serious for individuals who are just trying to scrape things together.
There really is no reason that bank CEOs should have an income that's more than 10 times the average national wage. And I want to congratulate my colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson. He's done extensive work in this area. He spoke very clearly about this bill before us, and his amendments are to be supported. We should support these amendments, which are in fact very mild. They're not going to stop these CEOs being millionaires, but they're responsible amendments that would show that this place, our Senate, has got some backbone, is looking out for all Australians and isn't just playing Mickey Mouse games with legislation so the government can go out to the media with their headline, 'Senator Cormann is very effective,' making out that they're doing something when they're not. The Liberal-Nationals are not. They're protecting their own people, their own mates. And that's why I very warmly congratulate Senator Peter Whish-Wilson on these amendments and draw the Senate's attention to how important they are and that they should be supported. I really regard them as absolutely essential amendments.
Again, I want to emphasise, when we move into committee to consider this debate, let's keep at the front of our minds one of the big debates this week, and that is about the wages of the majority of Australians. So many people see their wages going backwards because the cost of living is going up so fast and their wages are not keeping up with it. Again, if you're sincere about doing something about that—and surely that should be the bread and butter of all of us in this place, ensuring that people aren't worse off—you would actually bring the excessive CEO salaries into line. It's time that bank CEOs are paid a fair wage, not an indecent and obscene wage—well, they don't even call it a wage; they call it 'salary remuneration' or whatever words they come up with. But it's indecent. It's obscene. It's really, really ugly, and something needs to change.
This bill needs teeth, and that's what the Greens amendments provide. They put some oomph, some guts, into this bill which is so urgently needed. We know that the majority of Australians want this—absolutely. The reason I'm saying that so emphatically is because of some very impressive research. I congratulate the Australia Institute. They have done some excellent research in really showing how out of control the banking system is in this country, particularly with regard to the four banks. One of their very extensive research projects polled over 1,400 Australians in 2016, at the time when there was a push for a royal commission. It found that 76 per cent of these people agreed that the big four banks should put customers ahead of shareholders. That is the essence of what I'm talking about and what Senator Peter Whish-Wilson's amendments go to. They go to what Australians want to see. All they're after is a fair system. How many times do you hear the politicians on the conservative side talk about fairness? It's just words to them. Well, this is an opportunity to do the right thing. I very much congratulate Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, and I look forward to the debate in the committee stage.
Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which this government is implementing, represents part of the most significant reform to our financial sector in a generation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018 will increase the accountability of banks, as authorised deposit-taking institutions, and their most senior executives and directors, helping to restore the community's trust and confidence in the institutions that play such a central role in our financial system and the wellbeing of all Australians.
Schedule 1 to the bill introduces the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which imposes new heightened accountability obligations for authorised deposit-taking institutions and their accountable persons. These obligations are focused on matters such as conducting business with honesty, integrity, due skill, care and diligence, being open and cooperative in dealings with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and preventing matters arising that would adversely affect the authorised deposit-taking institution's prudential, reputation or standing. These accountability obligations go to the heart of the ensuring that the community can have trust in authorised deposit-taking institutions and the way they conduct their business. Authorised deposit-taking institutions will be required to register their accountable persons with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority prior to appointment, ensuring that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has greater visibility over the individuals taking up the roles that shape the conduct of authorised deposit-taking institutions. Those authorised deposit-taking institutions will also be required to provide accountability statements and accountability maps to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, ensuring there's a clear allocation of responsibility for authorised deposit-taking institutions' functions to individual accountable persons.
The bill also increases the consequences for authorised deposit-taking institutions and accountable persons that fail to meet the new heightened accountability obligations. These increased consequences will ensure that authorised deposit-taking institutions and their accountable persons have strong incentives to ensure they meet their obligations. Accountable persons will have a minimum amount of their variable remuneration deferred for at least four years, with the amount to be deferred based on the size of the authorised deposit-taking institution. Authorised deposit-taking institutions will also be required to include, in their remuneration policies, provisions for the nonpayment of deferred variable remuneration where an accountable person fails to comply with their accountability obligations. Ensuring there are financial consequences for accountable persons who do not meet their obligations will increase their focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority will also be provided with stronger disqualification powers by being able to disqualify an accountable person directly rather than applying to the Federal Court. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority disqualification decisions will be subject to merits and judicial review; however, the more streamlined powers will ensure that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority can more readily respond where an accountable person does not comply with their accountability obligations.
The bill also introduces substantial new civil penalties for authorised deposit-taking institutions which breach any requirements of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime which relate to prudential matters. These penalties will range from up to $10.5 million for small authorised deposit-taking institutions to up to $210 million for large authorised deposit-taking institutions. These civil penalties will put in place strong financial incentives for authorised deposit-taking institutions to ensure they meet their obligations under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime.
Finally, schedule 2 to the bill introduces a number of powers to allow the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to examine witnesses. These powers will apply in relation to the entire Banking Act, and will particularly support the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's enforcement of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. They broadly replicate powers that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority already has in relation to other institutions, including the superannuation sector.
Australia's financial system is strong and resilient. However, the series of scandals in recent years has demonstrated that it is not immune from problems. Banks have not acted with the highest levels of integrity and accountability at all times which the community expects of them, and this has eroded trust in these institutions. That is why it is important that the Banking Executive Accountability Regime commence as soon as possible, to ensure that accountability gaps in the banking sector are addressed promptly. For this reason, the Banking Executive Accountability Regime will commence on 1 July 2018. That said, the government has provided for transition arrangements for elements which will require longer to implement, such as the remuneration requirements and accountability documentation.
Following meetings with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the government has been developing additional transitional arrangements which would have provided APRA with the flexibility it needs to allow staged implementation for small authorised deposit-taking institutions and provide additional time, until at least 1 January 2019, for these entities to comply with the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. This would allow the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to focus on implementing the Banking Executive Accountability Regime for large authorised deposit-taking institutions—our key priority, because of how many Australian customers are touched by these institutions.
The opposition has informed the government that they're proposing to delay the commencement of the BEAR for small and medium authorised deposit-taking institutions until 1 July 2019. In order to facilitate the expeditious passage of these critical reforms, the government has agreed to this. It is vital that Australians see these reforms implemented and these rules legislated as soon as possible. These Turnbull government reforms are too important to play politics with.
Whilst we're reluctant to see unnecessary delay to the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, our first priority is protecting Australian banking customers and enshrining appropriate protections in legislation. This bill will ensure that the banks, as the heart of the financial sector, meet the community's expectations by clarifying accountability obligations, clarifying the responsibilities of senior executives and imposing more significant consequences where these obligations are not met. The Banking Executive Accountability Regime will ensure the banks shift their focus from profit at all costs to outcomes for all Australians. I commend this bill to the Senate.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The Greens have two amendments to move this morning to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018. The first one I will move immediately. By leave, I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8342 revised:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (lines 8 to 25), omit section 37G, substitute: 37G Pecuniary penalty for non-compliance with this Part.
(1) An ADI is liable to a pecuniary penalty if:
(a) an ADI contravenes its obligations under this Part (other than this Division); and
(b) the contravention relates to prudential matters.
(2) The maximum amount of pecuniary penalty is an amount at the rate of 10 penalty units for every $1,000,000 in assets, of the ADI within the control (however described) of the part of the ADI's banking business that is carried out in Australia.
(3) In determining the pecuniary penalty, the Federal Court of Australia must have regard to the impact that the penalty would have on the viability of the ADI.
(4) Subsection (3) does not limit subclause 1(3) of Schedule 2.
(5) This section is a civil penalty provision.
This amendment in a nutshell directly relates any penalties or punitive measures to accountable persons or executives to their size under this scheme. We believe that an ADI, an authorised deposit-taking institution, which is liable for pecuniary penalties, should receive a penalty in line with their company size or their value. So the bigger the bank the bigger the fine. It's pretty simple and it's outlined in the amendment. We believe that the maximum amount of pecuniary penalties is an amount at the rate 10 penalty units for every million dollars in assets for those ADIs that are captured by this legislation. There are some more detail in there, and I presume, of course, all the senators have read it. We think it's pretty straightforward and self-explanatory. I'm not sure why you wouldn't support it.
Just before we put that to the vote, I do need to clarify one thing you said, Senator Cormann, in relation to deferred remuneration. In your second reading speech you talked about deferring the variable component of captured persons under this legislation and you said it was for at least four years. My understanding is that it was up to four years in the legislation. Could you clarify that, please?
) ( ): The legislation prescribes four years, and so it will be four years unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Just to be clear, Minister, up to four years or at least four years? In your second reading speech you implied it was a minimum of four years, but my understanding is it is up to four years—so a maximum of four years.
It is four years.
Could it be one year? Could it be two years? Could it be three years? Can we clarify this, please.
My advice is that the minimum amount to be deferred must be deferred for at least four years.
Thank you for clarifying that, Minister.
I'm now speaking to the amendments moved by Senator Whish-Wilson. The government will be opposing this amendment. The government considers the civil penalties are set up at an appropriate level to provide a strong deterrent for poor behaviour by banks. These penalties equate to maximums of $10.5 million for small authorised deposit-taking institutions, $52.5 million for medium-sized authorised deposit-taking institutions and $210 million for large authorised deposit-taking institutions. These are tough penalties and substantially higher than the penalties generally available under the Commonwealth legislation. They provide a clear incentive for banks to ensure they comply with the requirements of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. In contrast, the penalties proposed in this amendment would, in many cases, grossly exceed the maximum penalties currently provided for under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. For example, for large authorised deposit-taking institutions, the maximum penalty would increase from $210 million to over $1 billion. The maximum penalties for some small and medium authorised deposit-taking institutions would also increase under the proposed amendment. The Banking Executive Accountability Regime has been carefully calibrated to operate proportionately across banks of different sizes. This amendment would adjust that calibration to the detriment of the small and medium authorised deposit-taking institutions. The civil penalties proposed by the government strike the right balance between providing a strong deterrent to poor behaviour by banks and ensuring they are proportionate to the size of authorised deposit-taking institutions.
I also reiterate that these are maximum penalties. In imposing a civil penalty, a court is required to take into account the nature of the breach of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, the extent of loss suffered and the impact of the penalty on the viability of the bank, amongst other factors.
Labor will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment seeks to replace the current tiered penalty regime under the BEAR with a sliding scale of penalties. We note that submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill stated that the maximum penalties under the government's bill are a greater proportion of the size of small and medium ADIs compared to the large banks. However, this amendment ties the penalties to what seems an uncertain definition of what the banks' assets are. This would lead to uncertainty over applicable penalties for individual ADIs. While we note the intent to have penalties set at a more proportionate level, an effect of the formula in this amendment will be to significantly increase penalties for many small and medium ADIs. This could have an impact on the ability of these small and medium ADIs to compete.
Before I get to another question to Senator Cormann, I have to respond to Senator O'Neill. I've been hearing about grizzly bears and teddy bears in this place for two days now from the Labor Party. They wanted a regime that's going to be like a grizzly bear—a bear that's got teeth and claws and rips into the banks and makes sure we get some solid action here—and here they're knocking back a simple amendment that, yes, would significantly increase potential pecuniary fines on the banks for bad behaviour. That's why we've done it. I would have thought that was pretty straightforward and exactly what you were seeking, having listened to all your second reading speeches. So I am disappointed that Labor will not support this.
I do take on board your views about total assets, but that is actually quite clearly defined. In any banking analyst's report, you'll get a definition of how the assets or net assets are calculated for the bank. So I don't personally think that's an issue, but, if the Labor Party had a problem with that, they could have talked to us about it and we could have clarified that or included it in the amendment. The amendments have been circulated for some days now, so I do see it as probably a bit of an excuse to just not support a good Greens amendment.
Minister, you mentioned that there's a gradation in the fines or pecuniary penalties for different sized banks and that the top-tier banks' penalties are set at a maximum of $210 million. Is the minister aware that the size of those tier-1 banks is very variable? For example, the market capitalisation of the Commonwealth Bank is about $140 billion as we speak, whereas National Australia Bank is half that at just over $70 billion. How is it fair that the Commonwealth Bank, which is a much larger bank, gets to pay the same penalty as a bank half its size?
Yes, I'm aware that different businesses in Australia are of a different size. I'm aware that different banks are of a different size. I know that, among the big banks, some are bigger than others. But it's not appropriate for parliament, the government or legislators to tailor-make penalty arrangements for individual businesses. It's not unusual for certain tiers to be determined and for certain categories to be established and, as I indicated in my primary response to the Greens amendment, the government believe that we've got the balance right and that we've got the categorisation of small, medium and larger banks right.
I'd like to take this opportunity to put on the record the Nick Xenophon Team's support for this bill. A new accountability framework for the banks and for senior bank employees is long overdue. The Nick Xenophon Team welcomes the delayed implementation for small and medium banks, credit unions and building societies. While the bill may not be perfect, it should not be opposed. The royal commission into misconduct in the banking superannuation and financial services industry is finally underway, and I sincerely hope this will lead to a change in the culture that has adversely affected the lives of so many consumers.
The royal commission will also examine the need for a last-resort compensation scheme for victims of bad financial advice and misconduct. A number of senators in this chamber would be aware of the strong advocacy by former Senator Nick Xenophon on the issue of a last-resort compensation scheme. A last-resort compensation scheme is the only way to ensure that customers who suffer loss from misconduct are compensated. It is a missing piece of a financial services regulatory framework. The Nick Xenophon Team looks forward to seeing the recommendations of the royal commission in relation to last-resort compensation schemes.
I will also take this opportunity to indicate the Nick Xenophon Team's position on the amendments circulated by Senator Whish-Wilson. We do not support the amendment on sheet 8342 relating to executive caps. Whilst we agree that the pay packets of many CEOs in the financial services industry are far from perfect and ought to be reformed, it is the shareholders who ultimately bear the cost of paying the CEO. The direct intervention approach as proposed by the Greens is not an approach that is supported by the Nick Xenophon Team, but we do believe that the issue of executive pay is a debate worth having.
I can indicate that we will be supporting the amendment on sheet 8343, as the penalty regime does not adequately reflect the difference in size between big banks and the smaller regional and customer owned banks. The entire profit of the customer owned banking sector in 2016-17 was $487 million. In contrast, the Commonwealth Bank announced today a $4.8 billion half-year profit. We believe that this amendment will prevent any disproportionate impact on smaller banks and assist in discouraging activity within banks that gives rise to prudential risk. In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the work of the Economics Committee and thank those who made submissions to the inquiry into this bill.
Before I get to my next question to Senator Cormann, I might say, for Senator Patrick's benefit—and I did cover this in my second reading contribution yesterday—that the Israeli parliament looked at this issue of executive caps, starting with their own version of a parliamentary inquiry in 2010. At the time it was very progressive legislation around executive caps, and it took the approach that you mentioned, whereby they said that they wanted to give shareholders, especially, more transparency and more say in setting executive caps for the banking sector. That legislation was passed in 2012, but they found that it led to no change at all in the executive salary caps. Then in 2016, four years later, they passed the first legislation internationally capping executive salaries at very similar levels to what we're proposing. Any banker who earns more than that gets a massive amount of tax, and basically it's not worth it. They came to the conclusion that, left to their own devices—many of the big institutional shareholders that control the banks are part of the market system and part of the same ethos, the profit ethos, that drives the banks and a lot of the bad behaviour. But their decision wasn't just about bringing the banking sector into line and holding it to account. It was also fundamentally a question of equity and a moral argument about inequality in their own country. If a banker earns $1½ million, that's still a hell of a lot more than most people will ever earn. It's still 100 times your average weekly earnings. They felt that was sufficient.
Interestingly enough, the bankers association in Israel challenged it in the Supreme Court, as you'd expect they would, and failed. So, they were the first country in the world to do it. And I don't often get up in this place and speak about Israel, but in this case I think they've led the way and there's absolutely no reason we can't do the same thing. So, I will just say that, which I did cover during the second reading debate yesterday.
Senator Cormann, my last question to you, you'll be pleased to know, on this amendment is on the differences in the sizes of the tier 1 banks. As you just agreed, those banks are very different sizes. The Commonwealth Bank is nearly twice the size of the National Australia Bank. Isn't that fundamentally also accepting that those different banks will have different advantages and disadvantages in funding a penalty, if it's capped at $210 million? Essentially, by saying that, given the funds available to CommBank, it'll be twice as easy for them to pay a fine of $210 million based on their market capitalisation. I think that we actually need to differentiate all banks on the size of their assets.
I've answered that question. The answer to the initial question is no, and the government believe that we've appropriately calibrated the penalties according to the various tiers, as I indicated in my initial response. We believe we've struck the right balance, and there's not really anything further I can add.
Market caps are a pretty blunt instrument to go on because there are all sorts of other types of financing banks go into apart from equity, but it is a value of the bank based on the issue holder's equity and, listed on a stock market, it changes all the time. However, it's a fundamental principle that, for a bank half the size, it's going to be twice as difficult to pay the same fine as a bigger bank. I will leave it at that and let the Senate decide.
I'll just finish by saying that I can't get this vision of a teddy bear out of my mind, Senator O'Neill. Something warm and cosy that helps you sleep at night; that's what this is. We're putting the offer to the Senate to put a brown, black or grizzly bear in bed with these bank CEOs when they go to bed at night-time, and I would urge the Senate to think about that and support the Greens amendments.
The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8342 revised, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8343 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 15), after paragraph 37(1) (b), insert:
(ba) its executive remuneration obligations; and
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 18), before Division 4, insert:
Division 3A—Executive remuneration obligations
37DC Cap on remuneration of accountable persons
(1) The executive remuneration obligations of an ADI are to ensure that the ADI does not pay an accountable person of the ADI remuneration for a period (the pay period) that would result in the remuneration of the accountable person for the pay period exceeding the remuneration cap for the pay period.
(2) The remuneration cap for an accountable person of an ADI for a period starting in a reporting period for the ADI is the amount worked out using the formula:
number of days in t h e period number of days in t h e reportin g period x 10 x AAWE
where:
AAWE means the annualised average weekly earnings for the reporting period for the ADI.
(3) The annualised average weekly earnings for a reporting period for an ADI is the amount worked out using the formula:
number of weeks in t h e reporting period x AWE
where:
AWE (short for average weekly earnings)means the amount published by the Australian Statistician in a document titled "Average Weekly Earnings" under the headings "Average Weekly Earnings, Australia—Original—Full-time adult average weekly total earnings" (or, if any of those change, in a replacement document or under replacement headings) for the most recent index reference period before the start of the reporting period.
37DE Cap on variable remuneration of accountable persons
(1) In addition, the executive remuneration obligations of an ADI are to ensure that the ADI does not pay an accountable person of the ADI variable remuneration for a period (the pay period) that would result in the variable remuneration of the accountable person for the pay period exceeding the variable remuneration cap for the pay period.
(2) The variableremuneration cap for an accountable person of an ADI for a period starting in a reporting period for the ADI is the amount worked out using the formula:
number of days in t h e period number of days in t h e reporting period x 5 x AAWE
where:
AAWE means the annualised average weekly earnings for the reporting period for the ADI.
(3) The annualised average weekly earnings for a reporting period for an ADI is the amount worked out using the formula:
number of weeks in t h e reporting period x AWE
where:
AWE (short for average weekly earnings)means the amount published by the Australian Statistician in a document titled "Average Weekly Earnings" under the headings "Average Weekly Earnings, Australia—Original—Full-time adult average weekly total earnings" (or, if any of those change, in a replacement document or under replacement headings) for the most recent index reference period before the start of the reporting period.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), in working out the maximum amount of variable remuneration that may be paid to an accountable person during a period, any deferral of variable remuneration under Division 4 of this Part during that period is to be ignored.
(3) Schedule 1, page 31 (line 9), after item 15, insert:
15A Cap on remuneration and variable remuneration of accountable persons
(1) Division 3A of Part IIAA of the Banking Act 1959 as inserted by this Act applies in relation to the remuneration and the variable remuneration of an accountable person only if the decision granting the accountable person the remuneration or variable remuneration was made on or after 1 January 2019.
(2) Despite subitem (1), if an accountable person's remuneration or variable remuneration is payable under a contract entered into before the day this Act received the Royal Assent, Division 3A of Part IIAA of the Banking Act 1959 as inserted by this Act does not apply in relation to the remuneration or variable remuneration until 1 January 2020.
(3) Despite subitem (1), if:
(a) an accountable person's remuneration or variable remuneration is payable under a contract entered into before the commencement of Part IIAA of the Banking Act 1959 as inserted by this Act; and
(b) apart from this subitem, the application of Division 3A of that Part in relation to the remuneration or variable remuneration would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph);
that Division does not apply in relation to the remuneration or variable remuneration to the extent that it would result in such an acquisition.
Note: Because this subitem prevents Division 3A of Part IIAA of the Banking Act 1959 from giving rise to such an acquisition of property in relation to remuneration or variable remuneration payable under such a contract, compensation will not be payable under section 69E of that Act.
We've already talked about this this morning, and I certainly did in my second reading speech. The Nick Xenophon Party have indicated they won't be supporting the amendments before the Senate today to cap executive salaries. I am glad that One Nation is going to support the amendments to cap executive salaries. No-one can justify the salaries that are paid by shareholders to the bank CEOs in this country. Our banks are some of the most profitable in the world and our CEOs are some of the most highly paid CEOs in the banking sector on the planet. These amendments before us today, amendments (1), (2) and (3), will put a cap on both variable and fixed remuneration.
Fixed salaries are 10 times average weekly earnings, which roughly works out at about $850,000, double what our Prime Minister makes, so bank CEOs still make a lot of money. The variable component's half that, so it still takes them to well over a million dollars. As I mentioned earlier, this is in line with what the Israeli government capped their bankers' salaries at. They took some firm action. When that vote went to their parliament, it was 56-zero—56 MPs voted for it and zero voted against it. They got to the point where they all agreed that their banking CEOs were paid too much. There was no need for it, it was counterproductive and it only added to inequality in their country. They saw capping the salaries of bankers not just as an economic argument but as a moral argument. I argued in this place in my second reading speech that we have the right to do that as a government because bankers are an unusual breed and they have a privilege to operate in this country that is given to them by the Australian taxpayer. They have a licence given to them by the taxpayer, the voters and the government that allows them to operate and then they're insured against failure through the too-big-to-fail guarantees. They work in a very privileged environment and they literally are given a licence by the Australian people to print money.
I want to make this very clear: the Treasurer talked in his second reading speech in the other place about bringing bank executives more in line with community expectations. I have no doubt at all that, if you go outside these walls and speak to Australians, the expectation of nearly every Australian you speak to is that these salaries cannot be justified. They are excessive, totally unnecessary, inequitable and unfair, and they add to inequality in this country. If government can play an active role in setting minimum wages in Australia, why can't we also play a role in setting maximum wages, especially in an industry that's regulated by the government? It's part of our constitution. The Banking Act very clearly talks about governments issuing a licence to bankers and playing an active role in regulating this industry. As we know, if the financial system collapses, there's corruption or there's instability then it affects every single one of us.
Lastly, I have no doubt about the rotten culture, which everyone has acknowledged—even Senator Cormann tacitly acknowledged it in his speech in the second reading debate today—and the need for this legislation. Believe me, that is a big turnaround from four years ago, when we were having the FOFA debate in this place and Senator Cormann clearly said it was just a few bad apples in the banking industry. I'm glad he's come to the view now that there are some systemic issues and that this legislation is here today because of those systemic issues. I accept that it's more about prudential issues than it is about bad behaviour and adverse consumer outcomes, but nevertheless at least it is something.
We accept there's a rotten culture, and there has been in the banking sector. There have been numerous scandals. We've talked about them ad nauseam in this debate. The only way that you can fix that profit-before-people culture, that profit-at-all-costs culture, is to cap CEO salaries. It's the simplest and easiest way to do that, because the culture of an organisation starts at the top. If CEOs know they're not going to earn $10 million or $20 million this year based on massive returns, there'll be a lot less pressure throughout the organisation to constantly make profits and do all the kinds of things that we've uncovered in our Senate inquiries, like sell to people products they don't want, charge excessive fees and charges to their customers, rip off customers or carry out unconscionable conduct. That's our view. I won't talk about that anymore. I will simply ask Senator Cormann to at least address this when he responds to this amendment. Senator Cormann, do you believe that bankers' salaries are excessive and do you believe the government has a role in limiting them?
I don't believe the government has a role in setting remuneration for employees of any business, including the banking business. The government does not support a cap on the remuneration for accountable persons under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. Setting of salaries and remuneration arrangements more generally of any private sector business is, ultimately, a matter for shareholders and boards to make decisions on. It is not the role of government to set the size of remuneration payable to accountable persons; these are commercial decisions for an authorised deposit-taking institution to make in line with its policies.
However, the government does have a role in ensuring such policies do not result in perverse outcomes for consumers. This is why the bill includes provisions requiring the deferral of a minimum percentage of an accountable person's variable remuneration for at least four years. This will ensure that accountable persons have clear incentives to make decisions which account for longer term effects on the bank and its customers. Simply capping the remuneration of accountable persons would not provide the incentives that the referral of variable remuneration can, when behaviour of a person is clearly linked to remuneration outcomes.
In terms of incentives, if a variable remuneration is deferred for four years—and let's say the variable remuneration, the bonus, is $5 million—what kind of opportunity costs are going to be carried by that particular CEO or executive, Senator Cormann? What is the real penalty of having your remuneration deferred for four years? You still get it four years later. We're not talking about very significant costs. It's hardly an incentive.
What Senator Whish-Wilson has said is not quite right. Firstly, there's the provision where payments of variable parts of the remuneration can be deferred for at least four years. But, if there is conduct in breach of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, my advice is that there is a requirement for the bank to reduce your variable remuneration. There is a penalty, which we are confident will focus the relevant people's minds.
One Nation will support this amendment put up by Senator Whish-Wilson of the Greens. We are going to support this because I think what the banking executives get in their remuneration package—between $10 million and $20 million—does not pass the pub test as far as Australians are concerned. The minister states that it is not the government's responsibility to get into private business, but this is not the government getting into private business. As I see it, the banking sector is a necessity that Australians have to use. It is a service that is important to their everyday needs and requirements in running their businesses and their lives. It is something Australians have to use.
The fact is that the Australian taxpayer guarantees the banking sector, so we do have a very important decision to make here, because if ever the banking sector were to fail then the taxpayers would be picking up the bills. So the taxpayers do have a right to have an input and a say into the remuneration that is paid—which is out of the realms of common sense. It is important that we have this discussion and the Australian taxpayers have a right to know the government's stance on this and why the government are not prepared to rein it in, when there is another country in the world that has done the same with their banking sector.
Can I just quickly ask Senator Cormann: do you agree that remuneration has been part of a problem of poor culture in the financial services sector in recent years?
As I've indicated in my primary response, it is not a matter for me or for the government to have a view or to take decisions in relation to the level of remuneration of any employee in the private sector business. It's a matter for that business, that business's shareholders and their boards. We will have to agree to disagree. I understand the Greens and One Nation take a different view. You're entitled to take a different view, but that is not the government's view and it's not my personal view.
Is Senator Cormann aware that the previous chair of ASIC, Greg Medcraft, said that he believed remuneration was clearly a driver, particularly in finance, because finance is money, when he was asked this same question? Is the minister aware that Mr Medcraft, who obviously spent a lot of time looking at misconduct and issues within the banks, believed their remuneration structures were part of the problem?
Your amendment doesn't deal with remuneration structures. Your amendment is seeking to cap the level of remuneration, which is not what I understand Mr Medcraft talked about in any event. I think I clearly expressed the government's view and I think I have very clearly expressed my view.
I want to put on the record that Labor will not be supporting this amendment. The fact that this amendment has been raised so late—in fact it only emerged this week and really wasn't raised until this week—suggests that this amendment is more about grandstanding than considered policy to address this issue with banks, of which Labor is very, very aware. The ultimate sign that it is a stunt is that we have One Nation and the Greens voting together. This amendment would not fix issues with the banks that have come to light over recent years. Evidence has not been provided to suggest it would have the impact of addressing cultural issues and poor practices in banks. Labor has consistently argued that the most crucial thing needed to address cultural issues, misconduct and poor practices in the banks is a royal commission. Banker wages need scrutiny, but this must be done in a considered and careful way, and only a royal commission can properly attend to this matter, amongst many others.
This will be the last contribution from me. My colleagues and I want to move on to the next pieces of legislation. I can't let Senator O'Neill's brief contribution go unanswered. Senator O'Neill said that Labor believes the best way to tackle culture in the banks is through a banking royal commission. While I agree that it's certainly an important part of this debate, may I remind Senator O'Neill—through you, Chair—that, when I raised a motion in this place over three years ago, to have a banking royal commission for exactly this reason, Labor didn't just oppose it; Senator Dastyari made a public statement that it was a 'Greens' stunt'. I remember seeing some people on social media saying, 'If it's a Greens' stunt, Sam, it's a good one. Support it.' Anyway, we don't need a history lesson. But Labor did fall behind our push for a royal commission and, I will say, Senator Williams's and other people's push for a royal commission. I think it's ironic that I'm being told this is a stunt today when it is exactly what I was told when I was pushing for a royal commission into the banks to try to help fix the cultural problems that we have in our financial services sector.
I accept that this is going to be revolutionary and radical to some, but it's not going to go away. Other countries are looking at this. This debate about excessive executive remuneration in financial services is happening right around the world. Nothing else is working. You can't leave this to shareholders. If we want to look at the larger debate of inequality in this country then we actually have to look at not only how we raise minimum wages, which we desperately need to do in this country, but also how we cap ridiculous maximum wages at the top end of the spectrum. We need to do both if we're going to fix inequality and close the gap.
I also need to respond to Labor's comments with regard to this. To say that it was a stunt between One Nation and the Greens is absolutely ridiculous. There's no basis to that comment whatsoever. No talks or negotiations have actually happened between our offices. We actually came to the decision this morning after reading the legislation and reading the amendment. It was common sense for One Nation to actually support the Greens' amendment to this.
To hear Labor say this is rushed through and this is political—I've seen them rush through so many things in this chamber when it suits them. The whole fact is that One Nation along with the Greens have been pushing for a royal commission, and I'm very pleased to see it happen as well. To hear Labor many a time grandstand about the workers and what they're paid in this country, bleating from the bleeding heart, and then say that they're going to support uncapped executive salaries is looking after their mates as far as I'm concerned. They don't really care about the workers in this nation who are struggling; they look after their mates. So it's all bleating as far as I'm concerned when they support the government or they don't support the amendments put up. The Australian people will in their own minds think, 'Why would anyone be entitled to receive $10 million to $20 million a year in remuneration?' It's just way out of the ballpark, and Labor can never justify that.
The question is that amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8343, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That the bill be read a third time.
The question is that the bill be read a third time.
The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.
by leave—I move:
That Senator Abetz be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This bill provides the underpinning legislative authority to enable the expansion of the cashless debit card into new regions.
The government is committed to addressing the serious harm which is caused by alcohol, gambling and drug abuse paid for by welfare payments.
I thank the Joint Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for their comments in relation to this bill. In light of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's recommendation that the explanatory material be updated, the government will table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum.
The addendum provides further background around the use of delegated legislation to support the operation of the cashless debit card and includes the results from the final evaluation of the cashless debit card trial.
I also thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed.
I note the dissenting reports from the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens which recommended that the Senate not pass the bill. However, the government considers that amendments introduced by this bill are essential to sustaining positive impacts in the existing cashless debit card communities and expanding these results to new regions.
Welfare payments are provided to people in need to help with essential living costs, in particular food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. The community expectation is these payments will not be spent on harmful goods such as alcohol, gambling and drugs.
Alcohol is a contributing factor to an estimated 65 per cent of all domestic violence incidents and 47 per cent of child abuse cases in some jurisdictions. Alcohol related harm and illicit drug use costs the Australian economy over $22 billion each year.
The cashless debit card aims to reduce the devastating effects of alcohol, drug and gambling abuse. The card operates like an ordinary debit card, with the primary difference being that it does not work at liquor stores or gambling houses and cash cannot be withdrawn from it. Consequently, illicit products cannot be purchased with it.
The card has been in operation for almost two years in Ceduna, South Australia and Kununurra and Wyndham in the East Kimberley, Western Australia. In each of these communities, 80 per cent of an individual's welfare payments are placed into a separate account which is only accessible using their cashless debit card. The remaining 20 per cent is placed into their ordinary savings account.
Consultations with community leaders led to independent community panels being implemented, as a tool to encourage people to uphold social norms. The panels were established as a mechanism that allows individuals to apply to have access to a higher portion of unrestricted funds.
The community-wide impacts of the use of harmful goods mean that the CDC program is most effective when most people in a community who receive a welfare payment participate in the program. Where CDC participation would not be appropriate, it is not applied. For instance, people do not participate in the program if they have payment nominees, they are a student outside trial areas, they receive the age pension or a veteran's payment, or CDC participation would seriously risk their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.
To complement the roll out of the cashless debit card, the government committed an additional $1 million in Ceduna and $1.6 million in the East Kimberley in new funding for support services in the first 12 months to ensure vulnerable people were supported. The government has since committed to match the first-year funding envelope for additional support services in a second-year package.
Support packages were designed in consultation with communities and aim to complement and enhance existing services and provide a comprehensive response to address addiction, help people reduce their dependence on alcohol or drugs and have better financial management practices.
The results of the trials are encouraging. There is less public drunkenness, less gambling, fewer alcohol related hospital admissions, and people are engaging with the support services and working to improve their lives.
While the card is not a 'silver bullet' to overcome all community issues, it has led to improvements in the lives of individuals, families and children in the two communities of Ceduna and the East Kimberley.
Since this bill was introduced, the government released the independent final cashless debit card trial evaluation report that assessed the impact of the introduction of the cashless debit card in Ceduna and East Kimberley.
I am pleased to report the independent evaluation found that the cashless debit card has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling in both trial sites and is also suggestive of a reduction in the use of illegal drugs.
Across the two trial sites, 41 per cent of participants surveyed who drank before the trial started reported they drank less frequently.
Additionally, 37 per cent of participants who reported engaging in binge drinking before the trial, said they were doing this less frequently.
In the East Kimberley specifically, of participants reporting that they drank alcohol before the trial commenced, 43 per cent reported drinking less at wave 2.
Across the two sites, 48 per cent of people reported gambling less often. From April 2016 to March 2017, poker machine revenue in the Ceduna area was 12 per cent lower than in the same 12-month period before the trial started in March 2016.
This is the equivalent of almost $550,000 less spent on poker machines in the 12-month trial.
The government is heartened by the initial positive findings. The extension of the card in these communities will focus on sustaining these positive outcomes in the longer term.
Building on these research findings, the government has announced two new expansion sites, the Goldfields region in Western Australia and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay Region in Queensland in September 2017. Expansion to these communities will help test the card and the technology that supports it in more diverse communities and settings.
Roll out into these communities will also include $1 million in funding for wrap-around support services in each site to complement the operation of the cashless debit card and ensure vulnerable people are adequately supported.
The evaluation also found that there are areas that we can improve on—and as we roll out the CDC in the Goldfields and Bundaberg and Hervey bay region we will take these learnings into account.
The bill itself amends the existing legislation to enable the cashless debit card to operate in further locations. It removes section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which limits the number of locations, participants and end date of the cashless debit card trial.
Removing this section will support the extension of arrangements in current sites, and enable the expansion of the cashless debit card.
Under the legislation, the locations, cohorts covered and timing of the operation of the cashless debit card will still be determined by a disallowable instrument. These instruments can also specify other parameters, including sunset dates and participant criteria.
What this means is that the government can work with individual communities to co-design the particular parameters, and tailor the program to suit that particular community's needs. It also ensures that the parliament itself retains the right to consider each proposed new cashless debit card site on a case-by-case basis.
It is important to point out that the cashless debit card will only be implemented in communities that support it. Support for the CDC is measured through extensive consultation with interested communities. So far consultation has covered all relevant stakeholder groups, including potential program participants.
Consultation is conducted on an ongoing basis in both Ceduna and East Kimberley, and extensive consultation was undertaken prior to announcing the expansion sites. Consultation is ongoing in both expansion sites in preparation for implementation.
The cashless debit card is a world first in how it operates. The trials have been completed, an evaluation has been conducted, and it has been shown to work and now there is an opportunity to expand the cashless debit card to new locations. This bill will allow this to occur.
The matter of the cashless debit card is a complex one. Labor has consulted many communities and many stakeholders from around the country. We have received a wide diversity of opinions from both communities and individuals within those communities. We've heard from some communities and individuals who strongly oppose the cashless debit card and we've also heard from some communities and some individuals who support it. Labor understands that there are areas where there is a community that wishes to try something new to address drug and alcohol abuse, disadvantage and social dysfunction, but we also understand that not all communities want this.
Labor supports genuine community-driven initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse. To be very clear, Labor does not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. We know that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. Labor has consistently said that we will talk to individual communities and make decisions on a location-by-location basis. They are the principles that have guided Labor in determining our position on this issue.
The government announced in the 2017 budget that it will it establish trials of cashless debit cards in two further locations from 1 September 2017. This bill enables this by repealing one section of the Social Security (Administration) Act. The section repealed by this bill—section 124PF—contains the existing limitations on the cashless debit card trial, which require that: the trial ends on 30 June 2018; the limitation for trials to occur in up to three discreet trial areas; and that the trial areas include no more than 10,000 participants in total. These limitations mean that currently only one further trial site could be established and that all trials would need to end by 30 June 2018. The bill provides the frameworks for additional trials to be implemented but does not enable any specific trials. Specific trial sites need to be established by a legislative instrument.
Last year the government announced that it wants to establish trials in the Goldfields in Western Australia and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay in Queensland. Labor referred this bill to a Senate inquiry to allow for proper scrutiny of the changes and to allow for further consultation with the communities in existing and newly announced trial sites. From continued consultation with communities in the Bundaberg and Goldfields regions and the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry, it has become clear that there has been insufficient consultation with these communities and that there is no clear framework to establish whether they consent to trials being established in their areas. Labor believes that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to justify an expansion of the cashless debit cards to further sites.
The Senate inquiry heard that the ORIMA evaluations of the trial are unreliable and that no empirical judgements can be made on the basis of the information collected. Janet Hunt, Deputy Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University, said:
… the evaluation showed that the government's cashless card trials had not actually improved safety and violence despite that being one of the trial's objectives.
Hunt's research paper on the evaluation is critical of the methodology used in the ORIMA evaluation. She points out:
People interviewed for the evaluation reported that they drank less than before the trial began. However, such recall over a year is not likely to be very reliable.
Hunt also makes the valid point that given that people had to give their identification to the interviewer, they may have said exactly what they thought the interviewer wanted to hear and certainly would not have incriminated themselves. This is particularly true of the Aboriginal population, who, for historical reasons, are likely to view authority figures with suspicion.
The previous Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, described the cashless debit card trials as 'a huge success', and the Prime Minister himself has said the card has led to:
… a massive reduction in alcohol abuse, in drug abuse, in domestic violence, in violence generally.
But Janet Hunt made clear that this wasn't the case, stating clearly:
Someone needs to tell them that the report does not say that.
The ORIMA report shows that, when participants were asked about the impact of the trial on their children's lives, only 17 per cent reported feeling their lives were better as a result. In fact, a bigger group of parents, around 24 per cent, felt their children's lives were actually worse.
So Labor does not believe that the government can justify the further rollout of this card on what is clearly a flawed evaluation. In addition to the poor quality of the evaluation, we believe that more time is needed before you could draw solid conclusions about the success of the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. The evaluation and our own consultations with the communities have showed mixed results, with some groups in Ceduna and the East Kimberley maintaining support for the trials while others are critical of their impacts.
Labor's Jenny Macklin and Linda Burney visited the East Kimberley in April last year to conduct three days of consultations with locals and, in September last year, Jenny Macklin also spent a number of days talking with people on the ground in Ceduna and the surrounding communities. As I said, the feedback we received was mixed. Some people were supportive of the card. They said that the situation was so dire that they were willing to try anything they thought might make a difference. Many of these people supported the cashless card not out of hope but out of despair. Other people made clear that they thought the cashless card was disempowering and that it didn't address the underlying cause of disadvantage and social dysfunction.
St John Ambulance in Kununurra said that the call-outs for alcohol related violence had gone down since the card was introduced; however, at the women's refuge in Kununurra they did not have a positive view of the card. They told Ms Burney and Ms Macklin that life had gotten harder with the card, that there was more violence and more crime as cash became scarce. Other people indicated that if people really wanted to abuse alcohol or drugs they could find a way around the cashless card, typically through the sly-grog trade. Others expressed serious concern that there was no pathway for people to get off the cashless card even if they demonstrated that they could manage their money wisely.
In Ceduna, the local mayor, Allan Suter, is a strong supporter of the card, as is Corey McLennan from the Koonibba Aboriginal corporation. However, Ceduna Koonibba Aboriginal Health Service Aboriginal Corporation is opposed to the cashless card. Others expressed disappointment that the cashless card hadn't helped local Aboriginal people get into work. So the feedback on the ground in these communities was mixed.
The government is now proposing to roll out the cashless debit card in the Goldfields region of Western Australia, which includes Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Laverton, Leonora and Coolgardie. It has become clear to Labor that there was insufficient consultation with the communities in the Goldfields region of Western Australia. Witnesses at the Kalgoorlie Senate hearing, in particular, expressed serious dissatisfaction with the consultation process that was undertaken prior to the announcement of the Goldfields trial site, describing it as very lacklustre. The participants in the process often felt disempowered by the discussions. A local councillor, Linden Brownley, said:
I was involved in the initial discussion. However, I felt as though my presence at that meeting was irrelevant due to the fact that I work full time and run my own business. My comment was to actually engage the people of our community, not just Aboriginal but our community as a whole, to inform them of their intentions and what the cashless card is all about.
The other site where the government wants to roll out the cashless debit card is Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and would also include Howard and Childers. Unlike the other three sites, the government is proposing that this rollout of the card will be targeted at the specific age cohort of people aged 35 years and under who receive Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment or parenting payment partnered.
It does not include disability support pensioners.
Under the government's proposal about 6,700 people in total would receive the card in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. We don't think there is sufficient community support for the rollout of the card in this area. Fraser Coast Deputy Mayor George Seymour has indicated that he does not support the rollout of the card in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. He indicated that what people need is jobs, not policies that humiliate and divide people in the community. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the Say No to the Cashless Welfare Card Australia Hinkler group stated:
The human aspect of what will happen to people when they have their individual choices removed, their self control over their lives and how they manage their incomes and their bills. Rather than building a cohesive inclusive society, this card will being using exclusion …
Key groups from the Bundaberg region also felt ignored by the government's consultation process. Representatives from the Gidarjil Development Corporation explained:
Gidarjil is probably considered the largest Indigenous organisation in Bundaberg, and there hasn't been any approach from the federal minister in regard to this or in fact anything.
What an indictment of this government.
The cost of the rollout of the cashless debit card is also an important consideration in this debate. Given the significant cost of the trials—an accrued cost of around $25.5 million, or around $12,000 per participant—we must be sure that the cashless card can deliver its stated objectives. The government gave around $1.6 million to ORIMA Research to provide a frankly substandard evaluation. It is quite extraordinary that we are debating this bill today without any indication from the government about how much it will cost taxpayers to roll out the card at the two new proposed sites in the Goldfields and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay. There has been no indication about how much this will cost taxpayers. It really is quite extraordinary. The minister still won't reveal how much it will cost taxpayers to expand the rollout of the card to the Goldfields and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay. It's just not good enough.
Labor believes that there still exists sufficient community support for a continuation of the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. We supported the original trials at these locations in 2015; we therefore support the continuation of the trial in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. As it currently stands, the legislated end date for the trials is 30 June 2018. Labor will move to amend the bill to extend the end date for trials to 30 June 2019 so that a proper evaluation can take place. Labor knows that entrenched social issues cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we continue to insist that the government provide additional community supports for participating communities. We are calling on the government to support our amendment that these critical wraparound services be specified to make clear what was agreed as part of the trials and to ensure that these services are delivered. We also want to make sure that existing trial participants understand the rules around how they can have their proportion of income support payments on the card altered or can exit the trial. Labor will move amendments to ensure these rules are specified.
Labor will also move an amendment to ensure that no new trial sites can be introduced, by changing the allowance of three discrete trial sites to the existing two. In the future, Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the government can show that they have an agreed formal consultation process with the community as well as an agreed definition of consent and where there is sufficient evidence on a proposed model to warrant expansion.
I want to sum up by saying this: I believe that the government proposes the cashless debit card not because it genuinely is interested in improving the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, but because it seeks to spread a narrative that many people who rely on our social security system can't be trusted—that our most vulnerable Australians cannot be trusted with their own spending needs. It's the old conservative narrative about the undeserving poor.
I urge the government and the members of the crossbench, in particular, to give serious consideration to the amendments that Labor proposes for this bill. We aren't saying that there doesn't need to be government action in a very meaningful way in many of these communities. We are not for a moment saying there aren't chronic social problems in these communities. But we believe there should be genuine community-driven initiatives to tackle chronic alcohol abuse. We know that employment is important to changing the life choices and chances for many people who are currently welfare dependent. But the notion that a cashless debit card is some sort of silver bullet that is going to fix all these social ills is completely false. Labor has thought about this issue very deeply. We have consulted and discussed on this issue widely. It's not a position that we have come to quickly. I believe we have come to a position that is reasoned and balanced.
I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The Australian Greens oppose this bill, which will remove the current limitations for the scheme of three trial sites and 10,000 participants as well as allow the scheme to continue past 30 June 2018. It does this by removing section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The Greens have opposed the cashless welfare card from the start, the same as we have opposed income management now for 10½ years. I can guarantee this place that we will continue to oppose income management. We will continue to campaign on this until income management is not used as a policy mechanism in this country. While I very strongly welcome the ALP's opposition to elements of this particular bill and I also welcome the NXT's opposition to this bill, I do have deep concerns that you think it's okay to allow the cashless welfare card to continue in the existing trial sites. In the separate debate that will happen this afternoon, I urge you to support my disallowance to end this farce of a policy.
If this bill passes, all that will be required for a future trial site to be established—and 'trial' is a misnomer—is the drafting and registering of a legislative instrument. There will be no need for it to be debated by the parliament prior to enactment. The government will be able to roll out the cashless debit card—I frequently call it the welfare card, so I'll use that too—far and wide, and this bill enables them to do it if they want to. This is particularly the case given the bill before us does not contain safeguards on how long trials can run for, how many participants they can include or any requirement to consult with the communities of future trial sites. There is also no way in which people can transition off the card now or in the future. The Greens have opposed this cashless welfare card since its inception. It's a continuation of compulsory income management, no matter how the government wants to disguise it and play with words.
We submitted a dissenting report to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015 expressing deep concerns regarding compulsory income management and recommending that that bill not be passed. The evaluations of the two existing trial sites, in the East Kimberley and Ceduna, have reinforced these concerns. The ORIMA reports, both the interim and final, are not reliable sources of evidence. These so-called independent evaluations have been widely criticised by numerous social scientists and academics for not adhering to academic standards, having major flaws in methodology and the way in which it was reported and relying on piecemeal and anecdotal evidence.
There are submissions and evidence to the bill's inquiry from social scientists and academics who outline the major flaws with the evaluation methodology and reporting, noting myriad concerns with the data presented and researched. The key concerns with regard to the way the research was conducted were the unreliability of self-reporting on behaviours, social desirability and recall bias problems, not to mention the fact that people were paid to be involved. The East Kimberley and Ceduna data weighting finding was not proportionate to the populations of income support recipients in the trial areas, meaning improvements were overstated at the very best. There was a lack of adequate baseline data on alcohol, drug use and gambling in trial areas prior to trial commencement to compare to so-called improvements. There was a lack of differentiation between large numbers of people who reported not drinking at all. The evaluation reports did not make clear that additional services were provided to help people deal with the addictive behaviours or when those were up and running, but it seems that what there were came late in the trial period and, as I said, there was payment for involvement in the assessment process.
Dr Elise Klein, who has just completed a 13-month research project on the cashless debit card in the East Kimberley, expressed to the inquiry deep concern with regard to the reports which are being used to justify these trials as a success. To the inquiry she said:
My concern as a researcher is how that has been allowed to be evidence and used as a proof of concept.
… … …
All these other important issues around community disempowerment, around violence, around at what cost—it reports all these positive things that happen, but completely underplays the really large numbers of people reporting issues and hardships with the card too. It gives a very distorted idea of what the card is or is not doing. I do believe there needs to be a review of how that has been allowed into the public sphere and to be labelled by politicians as proof of concept. As a researcher and as an academic, I think it's a real problem the way that evidence has been used in this process to continue pushing the trial forward when there are some severe issues around what that research did or did not do.
In her very recent working paper with the former principal solicitor for the Kimberley Community Legal Services, 'The cashless debit card trial in the East Kimberley', the result of 13 months of research, the abstract says:
We find not only that the trial was chaotic, but that its logic is deeply flawed, and disconnected from the relational poverty experienced by people receiving state benefits. We also find that the card has become a symbol of government control and regulation in the study site.
Compulsory income management is a failed measure. It's been proven to be an ineffective policy that disempowers and harms those that need help the most. One of the most extensive evaluations of income management is Evaluation of new income management in the Northern Territory, commissioned by the Department of Social Services. The report was issued by experts from the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, the Australian National University and the Australian Institute of Family Studies over several years. One of the key findings of the final report was:
The evaluation could not find any substantive evidence of the program having significant changes relative to its key policy objectives, including changing people's behaviours … The evaluation data does not provide evidence of income management having improved the outcomes that it was intending to have an impact upon. Indeed, rather than promoting independence and the building of skills and capabilities, New Income Management in the Northern Territory appears to have encouraged increasing dependence upon the welfare system, and the tools which were envisaged as providing them with the skills to manage have rather become instruments which relieve them of the burden of management.
It failed, and here is the government trying to increase the expansion of income management when the tool does not work.
Compulsory income management impacts negatively on individuals and the community and imposes significant costs on government. Evidence provided through submissions and at the hearing of the inquiry on this bill show the fundamental and deep flaws in this approach. In its submission to the inquiry the Australian Council of Social Service said:
CDC costs approximately $10,000 per person covered by the trial over a 12-month period. The actual cost of the program over the forward estimates is unknown as this information is commercial-in-confidence.
To put this expenditure into perspective, the individual cost of CDC is almost as much as the single rate of Newstart Allowance, which is $14,000 per annum.
How farcical! How farcical that the government is subjecting people to this card and it costs almost as much as their Newstart allowance in the first place, which is inadequate and which we know is below the poverty line.
Legitimate questions have been raised about the opportunity cost of the CDC, particularly when the trial sites have serious problems such as poverty, lack of employment opportunities, unaffordable housing and poor access to health services. The expenditure on the CDC might have far greater impact if it were directed to services and programs developed and led by the communities.
There are also clear flaws in how the government consulted with communities before, during and after they imposed this card. The inquiry into this bill, as well as the inquiry into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, highlighted significant gaps in the consultation process. It is also clear that the government have focused their consultation on some Aboriginal peak organisations and some individual members of Aboriginal communities but have not consulted broadly with community members, particularly those who are actually on income support and who will be directly affected by this legislation. This shows a fundamental lack of respect for people receiving income support.
Nor have the government consulted on this current bill. The Law Council of Australia told the inquiry that where consultation is also undertaken with local government and those responsible for law enforcement, that is inadequate. The Australian Human Rights Commission was of the view that it is not free, prior and informed consent if people affected are not consulted. Ms Hatfield, from Catholic Social Services, who spent time in both Ceduna and the East Kimberley, told the inquiry:
Many of the people that I spoke to felt that the government had consulted with a number of key leaders but hadn't consulted more broadly with the community, and that those key leaders didn't represent them and couldn't speak for them. So they felt this card had been imposed on them. It was suggested that if the consultation had been more inclusive and took into account people that were directly affected by the changes, it could have been done better and there would have been more a sense that the card was not imposed on people. Most of the people that I spoke to said that the card had just made their lives more difficult, and they were very frustrated that they didn't have an opportunity to be involved in the consultation beforehand.
The community consultation process across both trial sites and the intended trial sites has been opaque, fractured and secretive and is not a reliable indicator of community sentiment.
We are still concerned about the operation of the cashless debit card and its impact on participants. In fact, during the Senate inquiry, when I asked the Mayor of Ceduna if, after the trial had started, they had gone back to ask participants what they thought about it, I was told no, they hadn't—in fact, we had some cross words with each other about it.
During the bill's inquiry there have been many issues raised by people on the card, service providers in the community and business owners. Many people in the current trial sites face barriers in using the card to purchase necessities and to pay their bills. The following is a list of some of the scenarios raised during the inquiry that people subjected to the card have experienced: they are unable to buy second-hand goods; the card doesn't work at the supermarket, chemist or post office—and I have subsequently heard there are so many times when the card gets rejected, and that's from speaking directly to people who have to live on the white card—there are no joint accounts; there are difficulties for people with disability, carers and couples; and there are no direct debits.
Something that is very interesting on the card is that you can't use the card for BPAY—in other words, you can't use it to control your own finances. You have to use it as a credit card. You have to supply your credit card number. That means the people wanting to take your money are the people that are in charge of your bank account—in other words, it lessens your ability to manage your funds. There's no privacy and there is the feeling of being stigmatised, resulting in poor mental health outcomes.
I've heard directly from participants who, where their card hadn't worked, were asked to stand aside in a supermarket because the person running the till had to serve other customers, which, again, is stigmatising them. You might as well put a card on their head that says: 'I'm on the Indue card; I'm on the white card'. This flies in the face of what one of the architects of this whole debacle, Mr Forrest, said, when he said in the previous inquiry, 'There'll be no difference with this card; it will be just like any other credit card or bank card.' Well, I'm sorry; I said at the time that that wasn't true, and it simply is not true. Everybody in these communities knows what the white card is and who's on it as soon as you pull it out.
People on the card have also experienced restrictions from many dining venues and been unable to purchase from mixed merchants. This is particularly so, for example, if you go out to a restaurant. Again, I heard direct evidence from participants of their not being able to use their card when they go out for dinner—if the place doesn't have separate EFTPOS facilities, which many don't—and that they have not been able to pay their bill and have had to borrow funds. It's simply outrageous. They also experience isolation from their communities because they can't participate in activities where cash is required or at venues where alcohol is served. Landlords in some communities only accept cash as payment for rent. There are difficulties for individuals to visit country without access to cash. The card is making money management harder. If you have one of the early cards that doesn't have EFTPOS written on it, you can't use EFTPOS; if you have a later card with EFTPOS on it, you can. Have the government reissued the card so that everybody can have a card with EFTPOS? No, they haven't. They haven't even told those people that they can get one with EFTPOS on it, which is, again, making life hard for people.
During the inquiry the committee also heard evidence of how people are circumventing the system to get the cash they need—and I've talked about that before. There's also increased 'humbugging'. There were many reports from stakeholders that people have left communities to try and get away from the card. A number of us heard about the outrageous situation where women were reported to be selling their bodies for sex in order to get cash; reports of significant increase in family violence because of the increase in poverty and pressure on the household; deliberate overcharging for services in order to get cash back; people gambling to be able to afford alcohol sold on the black market; paying for other people's shopping with the card and receiving cash in exchange. Again, I've heard that directly from people who have been doing that.
We are also deeply concerned that this bill limits human rights, as outlined in many submissions to the inquiry. The circumstances and trial sites are not so extreme or exceptional as to warrant an approach that infringes on the human rights of income support recipients. In the Australian Human Rights Commission's submission to the inquiry, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner said:
The Commission considers that the measures are not proportionate to the benefits sought by the Bill because their purpose could be achieved through other, less restrictive means …
… … …
… the Commission does not agree with the assessment that the Bill or existing cashless debit card measures are compatible with human rights standards.
The parliament's own Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, in Human rights scrutiny report: report 9 of 2017, made some comments about it as well:
In assessing whether a measure is proportionate, relevant factors to consider include whether the measure provides sufficient flexibility to treat different cases differently or whether it imposes a blanket policy without regard to the circumstances of individual cases.
As the cashless debit card trial applies to anyone residing in locations where the trial operates who is receiving a social security payment specified under the scheme, there are serious doubts as to whether the measures are the least rights restrictive way to achieve the stated objectives.
… … …
The compulsory nature of the cashless debit card trial also raises questions as to the proportionality of the measures.
A number of submissions to the inquiry noted the trial sites' disproportionate impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and, in the Human Rights Commission's submission, the social justice commissioner noted:
As at September 2016, 75% of trial participants in Ceduna and 82% of trial participants in the East Kimberley were Indigenous.
The Kimberley Land Council told the inquiry:
While we acknowledge the widespread negative impacts of alcohol and drugs in the Australian community, it is evident that it is Aboriginal people and communities who are most often penalised by punitive, experimental and top-down policies regarding an issue that impacts the whole of society.
The government has taken what the KLC would characterise as a ‘sledgehammer’ approach, which does little to address the root cause of the issues faced by Aboriginal people, particularly those in the East Kimberley.
The KLC is further concerned that for those people who need assistance to overcome alcohol and drug dependence, the CDC has very little proven ability to improve lives or create meaningful change.
That came through even in the flawed ORIMA evaluation.
The Australian Greens oppose compulsory income management. It is not the way to address these fundamental issues. It undermines people's ability to manage their money, it underlies Aboriginal disadvantage and it furthers Aboriginal disadvantage. The approach the government is taking to address Aboriginal disadvantage and issues around addiction is flawed. We need a health-based approach to the addiction matters that the government claims this card is there to address. This is a flawed policy. Compulsory income management is a flawed policy. I urge this chamber to vote no on this legislation.
I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. I'm going to begin today with Kalgoorlie, one of the proposed trial sites in my home state of Western Australia, and talk a little bit about the reason Kalgoorlie was selected and the origins of Kalgoorlie and the Goldfields coming up as a place where the cashless debit card may be something that the community would like. I am going to quote my good friend the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives. I think it gives a real insight into where it came from. The member for O'Connor said:
Today, I stand here to give voice to my community and the leaders who have so bravely stood up and fought for the introduction of this card. They are people like Leonora Indigenous leader Nana Gaye Harris, who started the ball rolling—
Who started the ball rolling—
when she first sought me out in Leonora in late 2015; people like Laverton Indigenous elders Bruce Smith and Janice Scott, who moved an entire room to tears with their powerful account of children living on the streets of Laverton, abandoned by parents on the grog; and people like Coolgardie community leader Betty Logan and her niece, Amanda Bennell, who in the presence of the Prime Minister challenged naysayers to look into the eyes of a child suffering the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and not feel compassion. I give voice to people like Leonora police officer in charge Isaac Rinaudo, who has described children as young as five years of age breaking into houses just to steal food. And I give voices to civic leaders like Laverton's Patrick Hill; Leonora's Jim Epis and Peter Craig; Jill Dwyer and Ian Tucker from the Shire of Menzies; Mal Cullen and Betty Logan from the Coolgardie shire; and Mayor John Bowler of the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. They are fighting for what's best for the communities …
This is a community led endeavour. The people of the Goldfields widely want to see this trial go ahead. This is not something that the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, or the government plucked out of the air. This was something that was originally brought to Rick Wilson's attention by an Indigenous leader as something that was worth a try. This is a trial. Yes, there are currently two trial sites underway. This is two more trial sites, one in the Goldfields and one in Queensland in Hervey Bay-Bundaberg. We must remember that this is a trial.
The idea that there has not been consultation in this community is quite frankly a nonsense. The former minister has visited Kalgoorlie on at least four occasions. The member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, has done literally hundreds of community consultations—direct meetings, face-to-faces with individuals, community groups, Indigenous leaders, Indigenous community groups, people on disability support pensions. This has been extraordinarily widely canvassed. I know this from my direct experience in Kalgoorlie. I've been lucky enough to have been to Kalgoorlie three times in the last four months since I've been a senator, and every time I was there every single person I spoke to, be they Indigenous, from the business community or the non-Indigenous community, said, 'It's worth a try—it's worth a try to do something different to try and break the cycle of welfare dependency, drug use and alcohol abuse that exists up there.'
I want to say from the start that the trial in Kalgoorlie is not targeted at Indigenous people. The welfare recipients in the Goldfields region are about 50-50, Indigenous to non-Indigenous. Obviously, part of the thinking behind the trial site in Queensland in the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region is that it is a largely non-Indigenous cohort of people who will be under the trial.
This is a government that wants to try something new in a space that has been for an extraordinarily long period of time a wasteland of good policy. It's very difficult to see what gains we have made in this area over the last 30 years. It is time to try something different, and those communities are crying out for a new approach, a new way of thinking. Again, this is not a nationwide rollout; this is a trial currently in two areas, looking to expand into another two areas and it's a trial that the government is committed to. It's committed to it because we're trying to reduce the social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol abuse, drug abuse and problem gambling in areas where there are high levels of welfare dependency.
This bill provides the underpinning legislative authority to enable the expansion of the cashless debit card into these new regions like the Goldfields. The bill will allow the legislative authority to enable the Goldfields region to be the third and, to date, the largest site for the cashless debit card. Welfare payments are provided to people in need to help with essential living costs such as food, clothing, shelter, transportation. From this, and in the longer term, we want to see communities that are safer. We want to see people using welfare to look after themselves, look after their families and get into a position where they can actually get off welfare, which is obviously much harder if you have a gambling, drug or alcohol problem. Welfare should be a safety net for those who need it, not a means of facilitating serious damage to health and serious damage to those communities.
Alcohol is a contributing factor to an estimated 65 per cent of all domestic violence incidents and 47 per cent of child abuse cases in some areas. Alcohol related harm and illicit drug use costs the Australian economy $22 billion a year. There was an independent report into the trial site—and, obviously, that has been criticised by some parties and we have heard a significant number of those criticisms from Senator Siewert. But this evaluation and all evaluations have to be read in the context of what they are. It found that 48 per cent of drug takers were using fewer drugs—and, yes, this is self-reporting and there are problems with that, but I'm quite sure if I looked back over the Hansard transcripts, I would find people all around this chamber quoting self-reported statistics. It found that 41 per cent of drinkers were drinking less; and 48 per cent of gamblers were gambling less. Nobody thinks that this is a silver bullet, but it may be a move in the right direction and it is certainly something that is worth trying.
As I said, I've been to Kalgoorlie three times in the last few months. This issue was raised with me by a number of people off their own bat but, obviously, in my role as Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I raised it with pretty much everyone I met. As I've said, the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, has done extensive consultations in his community to gauge success and has been running a petition as part of that process. Over 1,200 people in the Goldfields have signed the petition in support of the cashless debit card. There is an online petition that is still collecting signatures, so that number is growing all the time.
There has been a postal survey to 18,000 Goldfields households. They are still coming back. There have been hundreds of responses—currently running at 85 per cent in favour. The idea that the Goldfields community in particular does not support this trial is not borne out by the facts.
We need to deliver hope to the people in these communities. We need a chance; we need something to break the cycle of antisocial behaviour. We've got to remember that these funds are provided by the taxpayers of Australia—welfare recipients receive their money from the taxpayers of Australia—and the taxpayers of Australia deserve to know that we are trying something to try to break the cycle of abuse, of welfare dependency, of alcohol abuse, of drug abuse, of gambling addiction and, as I said, of welfare dependency.
As Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I did hear, and we have heard, from a number of community leaders who did stand up and voice their support for the introduction of this card. I read submissions and heard witness accounts from community members and I think that we need to recognise that we do have large numbers of people who do strongly support the trial. From the Community Affairs Committee hearing on 12 October last year, for example, the mayor of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, John Bowler, said:
Locals who live here complain to me about what's happening. They want a solution. I've been almost pulling my hair out—the little bit of hair I've got—asking: what is a solution? Then I heard about the cashless debit card, took an interest in it and thought this may be a way forward. A former friend of mine went through Ceduna last year and talked to the deputy mayor there, who was telling him how good it was and how Ceduna was so much better. So he got his number, and I rang the deputy mayor up—this was probably going back earlier this year or late last year—and spoke to the deputy mayor. He told me that court appearances had gone down by 38 per cent—you've seen the figures—hospital admissions were down by something similar, and that, generally, people in Ceduna thought life there had improved dramatically since the introduction of the trial.
He went on:
I then drove to Ceduna to experience it firsthand and make my own observations. I spoke to people. I was hoping to speak to the mayor this time—I heard him on ABC South Australian radio about the card—but he was out of town. So, once again, I spoke to the deputy mayor, I spoke to retailers in the town and townspeople and got the same picture: they were glad that it had been introduced. They said there were some complaints, but even some who initially had been opposed to the card had really come around to say that life generally was better, particularly for those living on the streets.
The mayor went on to say:
So I say this: the introduction of this card is a possible step in the right direction for not just my townspeople but these visitors and the lives they lead.
We also heard from Mr Patrick Hill, President of the Shire of Laverton. He said:
Everyone in town—the police, the hospital, the school, the Laverton Crisis Centre, the ambulance, the fire brigade, the resident group, the shire—has done everything possible to try and stem this abuse and the effects that alcohol, drugs and gambling have on our towns and the availability of cash. Council has formally adopted and supports the cashless welfare card because we see this as an opportunity to try and do something. We have had up to 50 agencies come into Laverton to try and address these social issues, and we do have our Laverton inter-agency group meetings to come up with solutions to try and stem this violence.
Again, Mr Hill went on talk about why the cashless debit card provided hope for their community, hope for their town and hope for an opportunity for those who are suffering under this cycle of welfare dependency, drug abuse and gambling abuse.
Mr Hill went on:
This will at least give us breathing space to do something and sit back and analyse where things can be done better and what we can do better as a community. We see it every single day. We have done everything we can as a community to try and solve some of these issues that we've got.
I invite any of you to come to Laverton over Christmas or when we have funerals so you can see it for yourself and understand the complex issues we have here. We know that the cashless card is not going to fix everything, but at least it will give us a chance to fix and address some of these really major issues we have in our communities, which a lot of people do not understand and don't see on a day-to-day basis as we do.
I'll just go on, again from that same hearing at the community affairs committee. Mr Taylor, who appeared before the committee in a private capacity, gave very powerful testimony.
He said:
I'm here today to, hopefully, give you some insight from a father who lost his child, a young adult—my son…My son came into contact with social services as a teenager. His life was marred by bouts of alcohol and other drug abuse, through his teenage years into his young manhood. He was 27 when he took his life. This card might have helped …
And Mrs Holman, a business owner in Kalgoorlie, revealed the desperation in the community and the hopes for the CDC—the cashless debit card. She said:
I think they are and, without a lie, every customer that has come into my shop or person I've spoken to, which is quite a lot of people in the community, are welcoming the cashless card. You've got to remember that we are desperate. The cashless card offers us a little bit of light, a little bit of hope, that things might improve. We just want something that helps and stops the alcoholism. Everyone's been celebrating—'We can't wait for it. I hope things get better.' We don't know if it's going to work. No-one does, and everyone who says it's not doesn't know either. We just want to give it a go. We want something—we need something …
This was my experience in Kalgoorlie, from Indigenous to non-Indigenous people I interacted with personally while on the ground, outside the public forum of the committee. Everyone was supportive—from taxi drivers to workers in shops to people I was chatting to in the pub. Obviously, in the committee hearings there were alternative views. In particular, I remember vividly the evidence from the Kalgoorlie Aboriginal Residents Group, who said that, within their organisation, there was a diversity of views: there were those who support it and those who oppose. And that's completely understandable when you have a significant change to the welfare system such as this. It is significant but it is a trial. It is trying something new in a space where we have an extraordinary amount of failure.
Again, if this card can be a tool to help reduce the amount of alcohol- and drug-related domestic and other violence, if it helps channel welfare dollars to where they're best spent, if it makes sure that kids have a meal in their bag when they head to school or if it makes sure the bills are paid on time then that is a way of breaking a cycle of welfare dependency and helping these communities for whom there is a level of desperation. We do have two trials going like this in different regions. Let's keep trying to solve some of these intractable problems. Let's not give up.
In the couple of minutes remaining to me, I want to quickly address something Senator Siewert brought up—the $10,000-per-person cost. The previous minister, in a speech, indicated that that cost reflected some initial set-up costs. That is falling. It's estimated that the per-person cost in Kalgoorlie would be something more like $1,000 and, as the trials expand, that cost will continue to come down. This is an example of the card. We're not supposed to use props in here, but it looks identical to a credit card. It's not white; it's a grey colour.
The government appreciates the support from the Labor Party in continuing Ceduna and East Kimberley, but we would like them to reconsider their position on the other trial sites. It is important that we keep rolling this program out into different communities, because communities are different. Communities have different balances of certain groups, different needs and different employment drivers. There's a wonderful opportunity in the Goldfields at the moment because there are jobs in the community. The mining industry has picked up again. I was there as recently as 10 days ago and was told by a range of community leaders that there are currently a thousand unfilled jobs in Kalgoorlie. There is an opportunity at the moment to really try and break this cycle of welfare dependency, to get people spending their money more wisely and get people out of a cycle of drug and welfare dependency. This is a really good opportunity to expand this, to keep looking and trying to find things that work, things that will change people's lives on the ground. I commend the bill to the Senate.
This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, is a good bill which seeks to remove the restriction to three sites for where the government can implement the cashless debit card. Australian Conservatives support the cashless debit card. I note the comments made by a very philanthropic Australian, Mr Andrew Forrest—he's been right to advocate its broad introduction. I also note the comments made by Mr Andrew Forrest when he called the Greens 'the party for paedophiles' for opposing this reform. I'm only quoting what has been attributed to him, but the rhetoric he used seeks to point out the terrible cost of the dogged clutching to ideology that we see with the Greens and others on topics like these.
The Greens and others refuse to accept that business as usual for Indigenous communities simply cannot continue. There are terrible human costs and terrible economic costs to too many families and to the Australian community. Reforms like these are working. They are delivering benefits to Australian families—Indigenous or otherwise. They are ensuring that welfare money isn't spent on grog, on smokes, on dope—on all things that the Greens seem to love—but are instead spent on food, on nappies and on the things that not only a family needs but a mother knows a family needs.
The Greens, the purported champions of women, the ones who parade around with their white ribbons, are on this occasion refusing to back Indigenous mothers who want to put food on the table and protect their kids. Instead they're backing the abusive husbands who seize the money, drink it away and commit all manner of crimes. We cannot allow this to continue; we have to break this cycle. We have to stop business as usual, and this bill goes some way to doing it. Let's not forget, this regime allows 20 per cent of the welfare payment to be spent how the recipient likes. Eighty per cent is on the card, and they can do as they want with the rest. It's a rough and ready principle, the 80-20 rule.
I will focus my comments today on the implications in South Australia, not just because it's my home state and not just because Ceduna, on our state's far west coast, has been a successful trial site and is a place I have visited many times but because, if the media reports are to be believed, the so-called SA-BEST party, as the Nick Xenophon Team will soon be, are going to kill this reform today. It's not just the Greens who are obstructive in this space; there's a far more cunning and slippery character: former senator Nick Xenophon. He's the aspirant for the South Australian state seat of Hartley. He's the grand inquisitor, who's launched enough inquiries to make Senate clerks weep. He's flip-flopped and, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said on a number of occasions, has wibble-wobbled like jelly on a plate on policy that he knows works, because he doesn't want to offend the left-wing base that he courts. I don't buy, and many Australian people don't buy, the Xenophon sensible centre nonsense. His voting record during his time here is absolutely clear. He voted in divisions more often with the Greens than with any other party. Premier Weatherill, the South Australian Labor Premier, might try to claim Mr Xenophon is a Liberal but that's nonsense. His voting record shows that he is of the left through and through, and you cannot hide from those facts. Mr Weatherill's rubbery figures are designed to paint SA-BEST as a conservative party. I'm not easily offended, but Mr Weatherill has certainly struck at the heart of offence in suggesting that Mr Xenophon is a conservative or that his party is a conservative party. I haven't found that the SA-BEST team have actually put their name to a single conservative initiative. In fact, everything that Labor have stood for has pretty much been backed, to an even greater degree, by the Xenophon team, and I suspect that Mr Weatherill is only worried that Mr Xenophon is chomping at Labor's base.
Notwithstanding that he's no longer here, everyone understands that Mr Xenophon is pulling the strings of the group called the Nick Xenophon Team, even though he's given up his part-time job with fellow Senator Griff that was designed to get him through the financial hardship of running for his third house of parliament. I note that Mr Xenophon has lodged a name change with the AEC to change the name of the Nick Xenophon Team to SA-BEST.
Yet again, I would say that the Australian Conservatives are leading the way. We recognise the cult of personality does not work for the interest of the body politic and it doesn't work for the interest of the Australian people, and yet that's precisely what we have seen with the Nick Xenophon Team. The Australian people want principled parties now; they're looking for people who are going to stand by their convictions rather than just jump on any populist wind or weather vane change to get themselves some more attention.
But, of course, I would argue that the South Australian media will chair Mr Xenophon around the state, promoting him—unquestioningly almost—and painting him as a Playford reborn in the interests of South Australia. Of course he's nothing of the sort, and here on the cashless debit card we see precisely the type of ambulance-chasing, get-the-headlines behaviour of the Nick Xenophon Team writ large. Let's remember that the leader of the Nick Xenophon Team/SA-BEST, zipped over at taxpayers' expense over to Ceduna, in my home state, where this cashless debit card trial was announced. The local mayor, Allan Suter, a good man, was—rightly so—a very strong supporter of this regime.
And it's worked. I know it's worked because I've been there and I've looked at it myself. Alcohol abuse in that community has slumped. There are better outcomes for everyone in the community as a result of this, and yet too many left-wing ideologues from the sterile comfort of this place expressed opposition to the schemes. But out on the ground, where people have to live with the reality of social breakdown that occurs as a result of abuse, not only of substances but of welfare payments—and, quite frankly, even worse abuses of the most human tragic kind at the coalface—people are crying out for these reforms.
I will go back: Mr Xenophon flew to Ceduna because he wanted to look concerned for the cameras. He's quite fond of quoting that character from The Comedy Company, for those old enough to remember, Con the Fruiterer. He's always, 'Looking, looking, looking.' He created division in the community; he stirred it up, saying, 'There was division and we needed to keep looking and looking to find a better solution.' Braver souls, I'm happy to say, stared him down and said, 'No, it's actually time to get on with it.'
I also know that Mr Xenophon's protege, the member for Mayo, in the other place, told The Guardian today that they want there to be a 'social licence' for a rollout in other areas. A social licence. That's also known as an 'opinion poll'. And that's the precise SA-BEST/Nick Xenophon Team model: opinion polls. In South Australia, we've always been able to predict where the Nick Xenophon Team would land on a particular issue, because we just have to look at the polling on that issue. It's blatant populism. It's worked a charm for him, because he and his team have been untrammelled about the principles behind the decisions they're making. But I would say that following polls slavishly isn't leadership, it isn't moral fortitude and it isn't significant rigour for making decisions in this place. It's not doing the right thing; it's choosing the path of least resistance. And, frankly, it's gutless.
The Xenophon approach is to be the rooster on the roof of every house, the weather vane, blowing whichever way the hot air of opinion polls is blowing. The member for Mayo, whom I might add is almost like a protected species for her fellow left-wing travellers, she's not going off to the High Court. Somehow that shop has closed around her to keep her safe from the High Court. I find that quite extraordinary—once again, a lack of accountability by those who squeal the most about delivering outcomes and evidence based policy.
Yet some of the strongest attacks against Mr Xenophon come from the Australian Labor Party and their useful sock puppet, the union movement. They loathe Mr Xenophon because he's prosecuting the left-wing political case better than they are. He is quite literally crushing the Greens in South Australia, cruelling the high ambitions of Senator Hanson-Young, who may be enjoying her last years in this place. In fact, Mr Xenophon is not so much siding with the Greens as slowly taking them on and taking them over as well. Some would say he's a Justin Trudeau in a cheap suit.
But I come back to the point of this bill. Here we have it. We have the Nick Xenophon Team stopping reform that can save lives in regional and poorer communities. They are stopping reform that reinforces that welfare payments are not a right but a privilege to help you step up from poverty, not to leave you in it. And this reform, if the media reports are correct, will fail today because the left-wing parties—the Greens, the Labor Party, the Nick Xenophon Team, and others who profess to know best—will join ideologically as one on this reform. This reform opposes the leftist narrative that people in this place will cling to even as it leaves people languishing in poverty and despair and has proven to be a broken model.
Today I have focused on the Nick Xenophon Team because, of those of us on the crossbench, they are the reason that this initiative is going to fail today. That disappoints me because I think Australians deserve better accountability from their politicians. I think Australian communities deserve better from their politicians. I think those who are most troubled by substance abuse in the communities—the families that are welfare dependent and are missing out because of the actions of some in their households—will rue the day that this important reform was blocked by the Nick Xenophon Team and others.
So I make no apologies that the Australian Conservatives wholeheartedly support this bill. I think it needs to be rolled out much more widely in the welfare space. I think we need to ensure that this is not just targeted at Indigenous communities and that it is applied liberally across all welfare recipients but with a particular focus on those areas most in need. We're considering moving amendments to apply this regime to all welfare recipients under the age of 21. It would seem like a moot point given the circumstance in the reporting today that this important reform is going to fail.
I commend the government for their pursuit of this reform. I think it's important. I want to commend Mr Andrew Forrest, whom I have seen in this place many times walking around trying to lobby very, very hard for this important reform. And it's encouraging to see a successful businessman not give up the ghost and leave it to other people but actually get in here, into the trenches, and try and convince some people here who have their minds closed to the fact that something else needs to be done if we're going to have a meaningful impact in reform. I congratulate him for it. I only wish that he'd been more successful in his efforts. I make no blame for him, because it is not him. It is not his efforts. It is the intransigence of others opposite who refuse to open their eyes to the fact that there is a better way in dealing with welfare in this country.
It's a pleasure to take part in this debate following Senator Bernardi, who has a wonderful turn of phrase. His perspicuity in his comments about the Nick Xenophon Team and the Greens are worth recording for posterity. I congratulate Senator Bernardi for his understanding and shouting out of two political parties who are really a waste of time and a waste of space—one might say oxygen thieves—when it comes to serious policy debate in in chamber.
The cashless debit card, as many senators have said, was first introduced on a trial basis in March of 2016 at Ceduna in South Australia, and this was followed by further trials at Kununurra and Wyndham in the Kimberley. These trials, by anyone's assessment, have been an unmitigated success. Alcohol consumption in these communities has fallen, gambling and illicit substance abuse has been curtailed and alcohol related violence has been reduced. It's also been reported that 30 per cent of people impacted by the reform have reported being better able to care for their families and save money. Some cynics might say, 'It's only 30 per cent; it's not 100 per cent,' but in this area of social policy having 30 per cent of a selected group better off is well worth the effort of undertaking the exercise.
The measures in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 will remove some limitations on the rollout of the cashless welfare card and allow the program to be introduced into my state of Queensland, and that's really why I am contributing to this debate. I know that in the last budget the government announced that the cashless welfare card would be expanded to two new locations. One of them is in my home state of Queensland in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region—in the Maryborough area of Central Queensland. It is one of the parts of Queensland that perhaps has the lowest socioeconomic profile, and it's one where there are real concerns with family violence, with alcohol and drug abuse and with various other forms of addiction that have impacted on so many families.
The rollout is good news for my state of Queensland and certainly good news for the people of Bundaberg. I know that the local federal member for Hinkler, Mr Pitt, consulted widely, as did the department, in relation to the introduction in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area. All sensible and mature community leaders support the extension of the trial into that region.
I'm very hopeful that a similar initiative will be taken in the Townsville region—where I have my office and where I live, south of Townsville, in a place called Ayr—because Townsville, regrettably, has been hit by very high unemployment and all of the social problems that follow unemployment and despair. Small business has been struggling. The unemployment is too high, but there are some bright lights on the horizon. For example, 800 families have been employed in Queensland by the Adani company as part of their railway line construction for the coalfields in the Galilee Basin.
I cannot understand why Labor politicians, particularly those like the Labor member for Herbert, Ms Cathy O'Toole, are lukewarm—that is the most positive way I can say it—in their support for this construction initiative which would mean so much for the Townsville district. I and my party support the Adani project because of the jobs it would create. Already, I repeat, 800 families have jobs in Queensland thanks to Adani. The Labor mayor of Townsville, Councillor Jenny Hill, is a very courageous person. Councillor Hill is fully committed to the Adani project. Why? Because it means jobs for Townsville people and a real boost for small business in Townsville.
I've asked Councillor Hill to join with me in seeking a clarification from the Labor opposition leader, Mr Shorten, on the comments he made as part of his campaign to maintain the seat of Batman and stem an onslaught from the Greens political party. Unfortunately, it seems that the opposition leader is trying to match the Greens promises in any way that needs to be done to retain that seat. Quite frankly, I don't care what happens in Batman but I do care about the impact of the promises Mr Shorten is making in Batman on the workers of North and Central Queensland.
Similarly, I cannot understand why the CFMEU—the 'M' being for 'mining'—are not wholeheartedly supporting the Adani project for the jobs it would create in railway construction, mine construction and eventually in an export-oriented mine in Central Queensland. The construction workers and mining workers would be members of the CFMEU. I know the CFMEU has a huge influence in the operations and policy of the ALP. It simply beggars my belief why the CFMEU would just be following the old Labor line of anti-everything, because it's their members who would benefit from Adani. But I digress slightly.
This cashless welfare card helps many jobseekers establish the security and stability they need in their lives to effectively re-enter the employment market. The card has been proven to work. It has been proven to reduce domestic violence and it has been proven to have better outcomes for those who do use some of their welfare money for alcohol and drugs. It's clear that not everyone does that, but there is a significant proportion of the community on welfare who do use the money for alcohol, for drugs, for gambling, which means their family and their children do without.
There are reported cases of alcohol-fuelled violence and violence because families don't have enough to eat. They don't have enough to send the kids to school properly, and that causes family problems. Here is a solution, which has proved to have worked in Ceduna and in the Kimberley. It's has proved to have worked and it does bring benefits. That's why I support this rollout to the Bundaberg-Maryborough-Hervey Bay area of my state of Queensland. That's why the community leaders in those communities also support this. And I look forward to the day when community leaders in Townsville will petition for the cashless welfare card to be introduced in the their region.
Again, I cannot understand why the Labor member for Herbert, Ms Cathy O'Toole, opposes this. She knows better than I do the impact of alcohol-related family violence, the problems of children not having the right money for school or food, because the welfare recipient has used the money for gambling or drugs or, more often in my region, on alcohol. Again, I acknowledge this is not 100 per cent of the people; I'm not putting everyone in that same basket. But this proposal will not affect those who already manage their welfare cheques well one iota.
Why Ms O'Toole would be supporting the Greens in their opposition to this real initiative to stop child abuse, lack of food for children, lack of proper schooling—I simply cannot believe it.
It's not true.
I hear Senator Siewert screaming something from the crossbench about this not being true. I'm sorry, but I will take my advice from people who know—that is, the department that is interested, that does the surveys and that follows these things. It is not part of a political party that simply wants to compete with Labor in the rush to the left in the hope that it might win the seat of Batman.
These are proven results. Although it won't affect 100 per cent of the people, even if you can see a noticeable difference in those impacted, of 30 per cent, then that's got to be a good thing. I repeat: the evidence shows that those who are doing the right thing with their welfare won't be impacted at all. They already spend their money not on alcohol or on drugs or on gambling, but on buying food for their families and children and making sure their children have sufficient resources to attend school as part of the school community in the normal way. Those people are already doing it, so giving them the cashless debit card is not going to make one iota of difference. I cannot understand people like Ms O'Toole who claim some interest in this area, or some expertise in this area in a past life. She would know better than I the impacts on families of drug and alcohol abuse and of gambling abuse. This cashless debit card is a great way to go and assist those families.
The government that doesn't try to break that cycle of loss of self-esteem is being irresponsible in the extreme. The social impacts on affected communities, as everyone who involves themselves in this area will know, are disastrous. Add to that the psychological impact on people who are receiving benefits and who abuse substances. This is a recipe for entering a never-ending cycle of self-harming behaviours that include gambling, alcohol abuse and illicit substance abuse. We as a government feel we have a responsibility to try to help those families who, for whatever reason, are not able to help themselves. I repeat: this won't make any difference to those who can help themselves, because those families already spend the money on the right things. This will only impact upon those who do abuse alcohol and gambling, and it will try to put those families in a situation where—
Are you saying everybody on welfare abuses alcohol?
I will take the interjection, Senator Pratt. If you'd been listening to me, you would have heard me say twice already that I am not saying that 100 per cent of people on welfare abuse alcohol and drugs. But 30 per cent of affected families have been proven to be better off. Isn't even 30 per cent worth it? I cannot believe that people who are supposedly compassionate, who abhor domestic violence and who allegedly abhor substance and gambling abuse cannot see that this is a good step in the right direction—it's not the panacea, but it's a step in the right direction. It is helping some families get proper food for their kids and properly equipping them to attend school. It gives those people in those families the self-esteem to try and move forward to get one of these jobs in the Townsville and Bundaberg regions when they come from initiatives being taken by the federal government, and, I repeat, from the employment that will be created when Adani gets into full swing.
I support this project very, very strongly. As a Queenslander, I hope it can be introduced into the Hinkler region, as the department proposes, very quickly and as soon as practically we can do it. I hope the Townsville community will embrace this, to lead to a better life for their citizens.
During the so-called Christmas break that parliamentarians allegedly have, when we take a couple of months off on holidays, as many of the public believe is the case, I and I know a lot of other senators and members of the other house use those couple of months to get around, to talk to our constituents and to become better acquainted with some of the issues in our electorates. My electorate is the state of Queensland. It's a pretty big electorate to try and cover but, in the period between the sittings of parliament, I took it upon myself to visit different parts of the state, particularly to speak with local authorities, local government.
I used to be a member of a local council before I came into this parliament and I was once, back in the glory days, the minister for local government, so I've always had a close affiliation with local government. I find, as you move around a big decentralised state like Queensland, that you can't visit everyone and speak to everyone in various communities to find out what's happening and what they need, so I've always made a practice of calling on the local council, because the local council is made up of community people who've been elected by their peers and who understand exactly what's happening in every community and what those communities' aspirations are.
In this break, I called on the Central Highlands Regional Council in the wonderful town of Emerald in the centre of Central Queensland. Emerald is a wonderful city. It's a great example of what good agriculture can do to a region. I do lament that some of the mining towns in Queensland are doing it a bit tough, but that is always going to be the case because mines come and go. But Emerald is a classic example of a city with great export-oriented agriculture and with a very proactive council. Why is there good agriculture there? There's good soil—well, there's good soil in a lot of places—but there was a dam there, the Fairbairn Dam, built by a Liberal-Country Party government back in the day when, I think, Mr Fairbairn was the Minister for National Development. That's going back in history. But, because of that dam, there is practically unlimited water in this inland Central Queensland area, which enables that community to grow cotton, grain and other crops. Practically anything that has a market can be grown there.
I just want to mention, in passing, that in Emerald at the moment there is an outfit called 2PH, run by the Pressler family, who, would you believe, exports mandarins around the world—to Taiwan, Japan, China and all countries in South America. They are in the throes of establishing new markets in the Middle East. When I was down there and called to see them, I noted to my amazement that the huge area that they had under mandarins had almost doubled. It's an incredible story. They were on the bones of their bums, one might say, some years ago when citrus canker destroyed their industry. The government eventually provided some compensation to all the citrus growers in that area, and, as a result of that, the Presslers built this wonderful business with the sorts and types of varieties of mandarins that people around the world want to buy. It's a huge success story. They employ, I think, 40 local people and 60 of the Pacific Islands workers program, which is great for Australia because it's part of our foreign aid to those countries. It's a real success story.
While I was there I spoke with the mayor, Councillor Kerry Hayes; the deputy mayor, Councillor Gail Godwin-Smith; and Councillor Paul Bell, an old mate of mine from a long time ago, who used to be the LGAQ and ALGA president; and other councillors there. It was good to catch up with them and hear of their successes and aspirations.
I then moved on to the North Burnett council, which is centred in the town of Gayndah, although there are several smaller communities in that North Burnett region as part of the new, enlarged shire. I had a very interesting conversation with the mayor, Councillor Rachel Chambers. She obviously has a very intellectual, assiduous, astute understanding of the importance of smaller regional towns. She said to me—I want to repeat this—that the Queensland and Australian governments have got to make a decision on whether they want small country towns to exist in Australia or whether they want everyone to move to the capital cities on the coast. She had a great perspective on the world, and I was delighted to listen to and learn from Councillor Chambers on some of those issues.
I later met with the mayor of the Carpentaria shire, Councillor Jack Bawden. He has a number of initiatives going in that gulf area of Queensland—that north-western part of Queensland. Councillor Bawden knows of the success of the government's Building Better Regions program. We put a fibre-optic cable between Burketown and Doomadgee. That's not in his shire—it's in the Burke shire—but he is next door and he knows of that, so he has an application in for fibre optics between Karumba and Normanton. That project certainly has my support. I wish him well in his application to the National Stronger Regions program for that. I might say that Councillor Bawden has learnt well, because he has about five or six different applications in to the federal government's proposals, which are all aimed at making regions stronger.
I also visited the Cook shire and met with the mayor, Councillor Peter Scott. We were talking about that great shire, which is really everything north of Mossman and the Port Douglas area—the whole of the cape. There are some Indigenous councils in that area, but the rest of the area of the cape is looked after by the Shire of Cook. I was able to discuss many things with Councillor Scott, but the one thing that particularly interested me was his reminder that 2020 is the 250th anniversary of the beaching of Captain Cook's ship the Endeavour, on a river that is now called the Endeavour River, for repairs to the boat. I might say the celebrations will highlight this aspect: this was the first act of reconciliation between Europeans and Indigenous people, as the two communities got on very well together after one initial misunderstanding. They got on very well together in the 48 days that Captain Cook and his crew were there.
I also spoke to the mayor of the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal shire, Desmond Tayley. He is a very committed guy, interested in promoting his communities. I'm helping him and other Indigenous councillors with a new grouping they have to get together to do better buying for Indigenous councils in the cape and in the north.
Finally, I met with the Douglas Shire mayor, Councillor Julia Leu. That is a shire that centres on Port Douglas and Mossman. It was originally, under a Labor government initiative, joined with Cairns, which was totally inappropriate. Fortunately, there were the two years of the Newman government in which they put the Douglas shire back to where it belonged. Councillor Leu is very environmentally aware. She and I differ slightly on the need to establish in a better way the road between the Daintree and Cooktown, which other mayors in the area support and which I think would be a good idea. Councillor Leu is not quite certain about it and thinks there could be a problem. It was good to catch up with these people.
So it's been an interesting time to meet with these very differing communities and to find out problems they might have, but, more importantly, to discuss with them their aspirations and to see where we as a federal government can help these communities in achieving the futures that they wish.
I rise today to stand very proudly with the Oaky North coalminers, a group of people who have been locked out from their workplace for far too long. I'm very pleased that today we're joined in the gallery by a delegation of these miners from Central Queensland who have been locked out of their workforce by Glencore, a Swiss based multinational, for 210 days. I think that is we're up to now—well over six months.
There are a lot of people out there who don't necessarily understand what a lockout is. There is a misconception that these workers have actually gone out on strike and that it's their own choice that they're outside the gates at the moment, unable to work and not being paid by their employer. In fact, a lockout is when an employer, like this multinational company, refuses to negotiate with its workforce and instead says, 'You're not turning up to work today. We're not going to pay you; we're literally going to starve you out of the workplace until you give in to our unreasonable demands.' That is what is happening in Central Queensland right now and that is what is happening in far too many workplaces right around this country, under the noses of the Turnbull government.
As I said, this dispute involves Glencore, a Swiss based mining giant which pays not a single dollar in tax to the Australian people. They get to mine Australian resources—and, sure, they might play royalties on those. Those are the payments to the Australian people for digging up our resources. But they do not pay a single dollar in tax to the Australian taxpayer out of all of the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that they make in profit. That's the kind of corporate citizen we're talking about here.
So it's no surprise that, when it came to sitting down and negotiating with these mining workers and their unions over 210 days ago, they refused to do so. This has been their practice, and increasingly it is the practice of other mining giants in Central Queensland: to refuse to negotiate properly, to insist on unreasonable demands, to exclude unions from the workplace and to stop the workers and their unions from negotiating with the employer about major workplace changes, like redundancies and changes to rosters, which impact on people's earnings—all sorts of major changes that have a massive impact on people's working lives and their incomes. Glencore has consistently refused to do that and instead has forced these workers out and is refusing to pay them—and while they are bringing in labour hire to backfill those jobs.
Unlike, I think, any member of the government, whether they be ministers, local members or local senators, unlike those members on the other side of this chamber, I have actually been out to the picket line near Tieri in Central Queensland to meet with these workers, and I met with them again as recently as last week in Rockhampton. We've had a number of shadow ministers on the Labor side who have been willing to go out and actually meet with these workers, despite the fact that in some cases our people live interstate. But these workers, who have been locked out for so long, are still waiting for a single representative of the Queensland LNP to turn up and come to talk to them. That's how interested they are in what is going on out there.
But, if they had visited the picket line and met with these workers, they would know that this dispute has never been about money. It has never been about these workers asking for a pay rise. They have made it very clear from the very beginning that this is not about more pay. Their main concern is about the security of their employment. What this dispute has come to after 210 days of these workers being locked out of the workplace is the company insisting on a measure that will make it even easier to casualise their workforce—to get rid of permanent workers, like the people who are locked out, and to bring in casuals, contractors and labour hire.
Senator Cash, it's unfortunate that you have to leave here now, because I know you've been very vocal on this dispute. You've said outrageous slurs about these mining workers but you've never gone and met with these people, and you're not even prepared to stay in here for another five minutes and listen to what I have to say now. That is the cowardice and the disrespect that we're seeing over and again from Senator Cash and other members of this government.
If Senator Cash had bothered to go out and listen to these workers she'd also know about the immense hurt that has been inflicted by both the company and the government in this dispute. I have met with families who are literally on the brink of breaking up because of the financial pressure they are under. It is turning families against families, because some families have had to make the choice that they can't afford to stay out any longer, while others are still staying out. But, of course, Senator Cash and no-one else from this government are interested in that. The reason we know they're not interested is that not only are they stepping in and forcing Glencore to come to the negotiating table but they're out there feeding lies and misinformation about these workers to their friends in the media.
I was disgusted last year to see Senator Cash out there in the media feeding lines about what these workers were allegedly saying, and calling them child rapists—she came in here and accused these workers of being child rapists and accused people like me of defending child rapists. We are yet to see a single piece of evidence that backs up the claims that these mining workers are doing what Senator Cash said they have been doing.
The government won't step in and force Glencore to the negotiating table. Instead, what they will do is line up with Glencore—back them in—and come in here and cast outrageous aspersions on these mining workers, who are doing nothing more than stand up for their right to hang on to a permanent job. I would have thought that's something that every Australian government supports, but apparently not this government.
This is a pattern of behaviour, both from big mining companies in Central Queensland and from this government. If you go to Central Queensland, you will see that the use of labour hire, casualisation and contract work is absolutely rampant right across the region. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to hold down the permanent jobs that allow them to feed their families, to get home loans and to build financial security. This government continue to turn a blind eye. They do absolutely nothing about it and they actually cheer on the companies who are doing the wrong thing.
I think that's a really good example of the fact that the LNP is consistently failing regional Queensland when it comes to jobs. This week, as usual, we've seen Senator Canavan and some of his colleagues out there trying to talk up Adani and saying that Labor is against jobs in Central Queensland. What absolute rot. If they want to have a look in the mirror and see what they're doing or not doing about jobs in Central Queensland, that would tell them the real story. They continue to turn a blind eye to labour hire exploitation, they continue to turn a blind eye to casualisation and contract labour, and they continue to do absolutely nothing about creating new jobs for the people who are unemployed in Central Queensland.
I have almost lost count of the number of different million-dollar and billion-dollar programs that this government has concocted to try and buy votes in Central Queensland and keep their LNP members afloat, but none of these funds have actually spent any money or created one single job. Here are just a small handful. We have the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which I and others have started call the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. Nearly three years on, with a $5 billion fund that was supposed to create jobs in North Queensland and northern Australia, and not a single job has been created in Queensland and not a single project has been funded. We have the Regional Jobs and Investment Package. It was announced over 18 months ago, and still not a single cent nor a single job has been delivered to regional Queensland. We have the $272 million Regional Growth Fund announced in May last year. Nine months on, and the coalition have not even released their guidelines for funding, let alone actually funded a project. Perhaps the most galling of all was the revelation on the weekend that a fund that had been set up to provide support for disadvantaged regional communities and start job projects is being funnelled off to support Liberal Party members and Liberal Party electorates in some of the wealthiest parts of this country. That is the level of disrespect and disregard that this government and their Queensland LNP members have for regional Queensland. They like to get out there and talk tough and pick a mining project and get behind it—or pretend to get behind it—but, when it actually comes to the crunch, they stand idly by while these big mining companies are casualising their workforces and bringing in labour hire, and the government can't spend a single dollar out of funds they've actually established to create jobs in regional Queensland.
In conclusion, I think that this dispute at Glencore and at Oaky North is a very, very good example of the fundamental difference that exists between the LNP in Queensland and the Labor Party. On the one hand, you've got the LNP in regional Queensland led by Senator Canavan, backed in by the member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn, doing absolutely nothing. They want to give a another tax cut to multinationals like Glencore, who already don't pay any tax, and in the meantime they are standing by, cheering them on as these companies casualise the jobs that actually are there. They cast slurs on working people with absolutely no evidence to back it up and they are incapable of creating a single new job from any of funds that they have created.
On the other hand, you've got Labor. We have consistently stood with these workers who have come to visit us here today. We've brought in commitments already about cracking down on labour hire, casualisation and the termination of enterprise agreements. We have committed to funds for tourism infrastructure and a range of new jobs. There is a very big difference. (Time expired)
The near genocide in Van Diemen's Land, the massacres to the south of Sydney, the massacre of the Wiradjuri in 1824, the massacre at Fremantle in 1830, the massacre at Pinjarra in 1834, massacres along the Darling River from 1835 to 1865, Major Nunn's campaign in 1838, the massacre at Durragee Hill, the Myall Creek massacre of 1838, the massacre at Towel Creek, the massacre at Bluff Rock, the massacre at Clarence River, the massacre in the New England Range, the Mount Mackensie massacre, massacres in the Gippsland region from 1840 to 1851, the massacre at Lake Minimup in 1841, the massacre at Kilcoy, the massacre of the Yeeman people in 1857, the massacre and reprisal at Cullen-la-ringo in 1861, the massacre at Pigeon Creek in 1862, the Flying Foam Massacre at Burrup Peninsula in 1868, the massacre at the Dampier Archipelago in 1868, the massacre at King Sound in 1890, the massacre at Mowla Bluff in 1916, the massacre at Bentnick Island in 1918, the Forest River massacre in 1926, the Coniston massacre of 1928, the massacre at Hodgson Downs, the massacre around Lake Eyre and the Simpson Desert region, the massacre of the Wardamba people near Poeppel Corner in the east Simpson Desert and the massacre near Clifton Hills—these are just some of the massacres that have occurred around Australia as part of the colonisation process that kicked off on 26 January in 1788.
I urge the members in this place and the other place to look at the reference material that is available about our history of dispossession and colonisation in Australia that led to the massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians. That is referenced in Bruce Elder's book Blood On The Wattle: Massacres and Maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788, which outlines massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians, and in other reference material. Have a proper look at our hurtful history that so often is washed over in this country. Blood on the Wattle gives a detailed account of a lot of the massacres that I have just listed that have occurred since the First Fleet arrived on 26 January in 1788. There are also maps that detail massacres that have occurred that I also urge people in this place and around Australia to have a look at. One is by the University of Queensland and another by Aboriginal artist Judith Watson. Some of the Western Australian massacres that I have just listed are included in the community map by Ms Watson. In fact, the Burrup massacre resulted in the complete wiping out of the community of the Burrup, to the point where now there are custodians managing that area, because the people of the Burrup were completely wiped out.
I don't have time to list all of the other impacts of colonisation and dispossession, but for decades and decades our first peoples have outlined the intense pain of celebrating this nation, the nation that we all love, on 26 January. They have explained that on that date in 1788 the First Fleet arrived and the dispossession of Aboriginal peoples around Australia began. It signals the start of ongoing and treacherous massacring of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It signals a day of grieving and pain for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. They have been asked that on that day we celebrate this great nation. That should be a day of celebration that is Australia Day. January 26 should be a day of reflection on and remembrance of all that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples suffered and lost, including marking those massacres.
I find it ridiculous that some people—and, in particular, those on the far right of politics—stubbornly refuse to change the date for the sake of so-called tradition because they say that that is the day on which we should be marking Australia. But Australia Day has not always been on 26 January. The first-ever Australia Day is reported to have occurred on 30 July 1915 as a fundraising effort for World War I. It was reported to have been the idea of Ellen Wharton-Kirke from Manly, New South Wales, who suggested it to the then Premier, Sir Charles Wade, because her three sons had been enlisted to war. There are posters from that era of a soldier standing valiantly and asking, 'What are you doing for Australia Day, 30 July 1915?'
According to the official Australia website, 1988 was when the states and territories joined Sydney in celebrating Australia Day on 26 January, and it wasn't until 1994 that 26 January officially became the day of nationally celebrating Australia Day. One of the reasons this is so important for our first peoples is that it is about truth telling and healing.
Lidia Thorpe, the first Aboriginal woman in the Victorian parliament, who represents the seat of Northcote as a Greens MP, spoke earlier this year of the pain surrounding 26 January. Lidia spoke of her great-great-great-grandfather Billie, who hid in a hollow log with his brother and witnessed one of the last massacres in Gippsland, where his father and grandfather were murdered. She said:
Each year I think about him and I think about what that would have been like for a young boy to be hiding in a log watching atrocities happen right in front of his eyes, the trauma that he experienced at the time and transferred to his children and to their children and to his grandchildren. You know it is very real today that hurt.
It saddens me that we have to do this. It brings so much anxiety and worry about what is going to happen on 26 January. We are sick of going through the same thing every year—sorry; that is a point that I think has been very well made by a number of Aboriginal people. For far too long we have brushed over our history in this country and refused to practise truth telling so that healing can occur. We have brushed over the fact that colonisation resulted in the theft of land, the decimation of Aboriginal culture and ongoing genocide of our first peoples. It is hugely insensitive to celebrate Australia Day on a date where all this began. As we can see, celebrating on 26 January is not really a long-term tradition. It's been changed before and it should be changed again.
The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples recently surveyed their members and found that, overwhelmingly, changing the date was supported—83 per cent of those surveyed supported changing the date. As Rod Little, a Yamatji and Wajuk man and co-chair of the national congress, said:
We can't undo history but the naming and the celebrating of us as a unified nation … the 26th isn't that day.
Support is also growing from the broader community. A recent survey showed that this year alone support for changing the date moved from one in six to one in five. Most interestingly, when the respondents were presented with the rationale for changing the date, support increased—in other words, when they learn about the pain and grief of celebrating this country on a day that is a day of mourning and grief for Aboriginal people, when they learn more about our history, they actually do want to change the date. This of course is not going to solve the issues caused by colonisation and dispossession. It alone will not solve them, but it is a step in the process of truth telling and of addressing the ongoing issues of colonisation and dispossession. It is a step in addressing the issues around sovereignty and treaty and in addressing our unfinished business.
I urge you all to really look at the information that is available. Read Blood on the Wattle, read that other reference material and understand why 26 January causes so much pain to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
I rise this afternoon to share the remarkable story of an extraordinary team of Western Australian women who are leading the world in the exploration of our solar system. Last week at Curtin University I had the honour of meeting an absolutely astonishing group of women who are some of the most respected planetary scientists in Australia and, indeed, the world. These extraordinary women are part of the Desert Fireball Network, which is based at Curtin University and which is working with NASA and Lockheed Martin to uncover the secrets of our solar system. This groundbreaking research project has already started discovering some of the secrets of the formation of solar system through the study of meteorites and fireballs and through tracking their journey through space. I have to say to the team: my apologies in advance for any details of the science of your extraordinary project that I get wrong, but I will make my best endeavour to get the science right.
The project uses an autonomous network of miniature observatories which have been developed and built by the researchers in Western Australia. To my non-scientific mind this network of cameras seems very similar to a single optical dish but is much more effective. These observatories now cover a third of Australian skies. They take pictures of the solar system all night, every night. These cameras track and triangulate fireballs for positions of the meteorites and their pre-earth orbits from multiple viewpoints. It is absolutely mind-blowing science done with mind-blowing accuracy.
None of this would have been possible without the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre, located in WA. It's where the data produced by the fireball network is stored and later analysed. This centre is also responsible for making possible the extraordinary work done by the Square Kilometre Array project and other big data projects in Western Australia.
After tracking and pinpointing the location of fallen objects, scientists begin the trek on the ground to collect them. Literally, the scientists will have observed a meteorite, which is probably about five centimetres big, in the desert. That is no mean task, I've got to say. They find these meteorites, which is probably a lot harder than finding a needle in a haystack. After they've recovered the meteorites they start to analyse them. These meteorites contain the secrets of the creation of the solar system, including how the system came into being, how dust and gas produced our earth and how our planet and other planets may be capable of sustaining life.
In addition to NASA, the Desert Fireball Network has partnered with Lockheed Martin Space Systems, and the technologies that the Western Australian team has developed are being adapted for satellite tracking. Christened Project FireOPAL, the project is unique in using multiple simultaneous observations of satellites from different viewing angles to pinpoint their positions in the sky and where they've fallen on earth. Each observatory is an intelligent imaging system in itself. Acting as a network they are capable of determining orbits for hundreds of objects every hour in real time.
The amazing women of this network whom I met come from a diverse range of scientific disciplines. Their backgrounds and ages are about as diverse as the hair colour of the ladies in the team. I'd like to recognise each and every one of these extraordinary ladies. I really hope that what these women are doing means that every young girl who dreams and looks to the stars and who wants a future in planetary science can look at these women and know that it is possible.
First of all, I'd like to acknowledge Renae Sayers. Renae is a passionate advocate for all things space, and I think she's got one of the coolest titles around: International Science Communicator. Renae's passion for outreach and engagement is a tremendous asset for our state as we continue to develop a thriving space industry in Western Australia.
Gretchen Benedix is an internationally renowned scientist, and she's the lead on the mineralogy and petrology studies of the meteorites found by the network's own geologists. I had the pleasure of holding a rock from Mars and some that had been found in the Wolfe Creek Crater. It's extraordinary what they're doing.
Dr Lucy Forman is a postdoctoral researcher in the team. She has focused on detecting extralunar fragments in lunar soils collected on the Apollo 14 mission to the moon. Lucy saw the light and moved to Perth from the UK to continue her career and make an impact in this field. She came to Western Australia because we are now one of the main global hubs for planetary sciences.
Nicole Nevill has a great passion for hard rock geology, evolution and seeking the unknown. She was selected for the John Curtin Leadership Academy in 2015 and recently won the Victorian Space Science Education Centre-NASA Australian Space Prize for top planetary science honours under the geology and planetary geology category. She has just completed a three-month internship at NASA, a collaboration that will continue for her.
Morgan Cox is a geology undergraduate who is responsible for decoding the timing of fireball trajectories. She tried to explain to me exactly how she does this, and I didn't get past the words 'This is what I do'! But it was extraordinary maths and application of science. As an undergraduate, she's already won the 2016 Eugene M Shoemaker Impact Cratering Award from the international Lunar and Planetary Institute and has presented her work on shocked minerals at international conferences.
Katarina Miljkovic is a planetary scientist with expertise in numerical and experimental impact physics. She analyses data from numerous space missions. Her research focuses on understanding the geophysics of planetary bodies, including earth, through impact processes as well as cratering mechanics and shock physics.
I would also pay tribute to the irrepressible Professor Phil Bland, whom I've come to have a great deal of affection and respect for. He's the instigator and developer of the Desert Fireball Network. He is a passionate and tireless advocate for Western Australia's growing space sector. Phil is a member of the space industry working group that I established last year. I look forward to welcoming him and the team back to Canberra next month to continue on the mission for a space centre in Western Australia.
These remarkable Western Australian women are part of the Australian and international planetary science community. I talk about these amazing women today because I think the work that they do is not only nationally significant; it is globally significant. As we turn our minds to encouraging more women into STEM and into sciences, there is no-one more inspirational than these women in terms of what they're doing. There are already 150 researchers across many of the disciplines that I've talked about, supporting international planetary missions for the European Space Agency and for NASA.
In 2015 Australia and NASA came together in a formal partnership of planetary science with the creation of the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute. This organisation has provided ground floor access for Australian researchers in the mission concept development. Australian planetary scientists are also represented on the NASA, European Space Agency and Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency mission science teams. Again, the work that is happening in Western Australia across so many different disciplines and sciences is just amazing.
I'm hoping that, once the Megan Clark review of Australia's space industry capability is concluded—which I understand will be next month—we will have put together, with the state government, a fabulous case for why we should have a new space agency based in Western Australia. What we want to do is bring the best and brightest minds already in Perth and across the nation under one roof with international agencies, governments and industry to apply their knowledge and capability to build this agency. Western Australia already has the greatest space capability of any state—space research and space exploration in both the military and civilian spheres.
Finally, I'd like to commend all Western Australian universities for working together so harmoniously on this proposal, with the support of Peter Klinken, the Chief Scientist of Western Australia, and the WA state government. It's in the best interests of the space science community and the best interests of Western Australia. And I'd like to commend the ladies of planetary science at Curtin University; they are absolutely spearheading the way of the future.
I want to start today by acknowledging the presence in the gallery a few minutes ago of the Glencore workers. These workers have been locked out their workplace for over 200 days—in fact, it's now almost the longest lockout in Australia's history. Why? Because their employer refused to accept the result of an enterprise bargaining agreement. They voted 164 against and 11 for accepting the enterprise agreement and, for that, they've been locked out.
But that's not really why I want to mention them today. I want my tributes on the Hansard because I was truly shocked yesterday when a senior member of the Turnbull government, Mr Dutton, called those workers out in this place and accused them of being thugs. He welcomed them to the House of Representatives gallery by saying, 'You're the workers who break people's arms on building sites in this country.' I can't believe that Mr Turnbull hasn't apologised, that there's been absolute silence from the government on what was an absolute attack on workers in this country, and I am absolutely ashamed. As a Labor senator, I unreservedly acknowledge their struggle and their fight. I'm ashamed that they were attacked so blatantly by a senior member of the Turnbull government.
But today I want to focus on another group of workers. I want to talk about women workers. Over the 20 years to 2016, the gender pay gap between men and women in Australia hovered between 15 and 19 per cent. In my own state of Western Australia, it's the highest in the country—the pay gap between men and women sits at 23 per cent. During that same period, women's educational attainment has steadily risen. The proportion of women with bachelor's degrees or above rose from just under 13 per cent in 1996 to 28 per cent in 2016. In fact, since 1998 more women than men have earned a bachelor's degree or higher qualification. However, what those women have learned, sadly, is that getting a better education has had little impact on the gender pay gap, and on their pay packets in particular.
Today I want to focus on a significantly underpaid part of that workforce: early childhood education professionals. Yesterday the Fair Work Commission threw out a four-year fight by United Voice and other education unions to achieve some fairness for those early childhood education professionals, to redress the pay gap between men and women where work is of an equal value. The Fair Work Commission didn't hear directly from early childhood professionals, so I want to put on the Hansard the voice of one of those low-paid professionals. I want their voice to resonate in this place as it didn't have the opportunity to resonate at Fair Work Australia. This is what Jess wanted to say to Fair Work Australia:
I'm an early childhood educator. And like thousands of other educators, in a week from now I will walk off the job. This is why.
Today, together with my team, I looked after 10 children who are all about 18 months old. They're physically active, so it's up to us to create an environment that helps develop their bodies and their brains. Gross motor, balance, coordination and spatial awareness as well as maintaining their safety are vital right now.
Jess is also expected to communicate daily with parents and to keep records in a very professional manner, just as we would expect being entrusted with the lives of such young children.
Eighteen months is also when children are navigating their relationships with each other, so our job is to ensure their interactions are positive and respectful.
I experience first hand how educating and caring for children positively impacts their future. This is why I went to university. I'm enthusiastic about each child's progress and I love what I do.
But we're not paid our worth and our passion doesn't pay the bills.
Incredibly, qualified educators earn as little as $21 an hour to shape the minds of Australia's next generation—our future doctors, lawyers and prime ministers. On our wages we will never own a home or have any financial security.
This injustice is happening for one reason. Because 97% of us are female. It's seen as "women's work" and it's treated like "babysitting" (but paid even less).
We are fed up. We are tired of asking nicely. Now, we are demanding.
I am walking off the job to show Malcolm Turnbull that I will not be treated like a doormat—not anymore. It's time we are paid like the professionals we are.
Australia would grind to a halt without us. If that's what it takes. That's what we'll do.
United Voice, my union—I'm still a member today and I'm a very proud member—says that the government has once again let early childhood educators down. Earlier this week, the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, told early childhood educators that demands for equal pay would be settled through the Fair Work Commission. Helen Gibbons, the assistant national secretary of United Voice, which is the union for early childhood educators across this country, said:
The Fair Work Commission has failed us. They failed to hear from a single educator about what it’s like to live on half the minimum wage.
Ms Gibbons went on to say:
Our case was made even more difficult by the government refusing to support the application.
Early educators are qualified, trusted and have a huge responsibility caring for and educating the very youngest members of our community. Yet they can be paid as little as $21 an hour.
All the research is there. We know about the importance of brain development, particularly for children between the ages of birth to three years. This is when we should be maximising the sorts of efforts we make with those children yet we pay the people responsible for that effort $21 an hour.
This poor decision by the Fair Work Commission, which will deliver not one cent to the pockets of ECE workers despite taking four years and who knows how much in lawyers' fees, will not stop the national walk-off that is planned for 27 March. Because educators are responsible, parents are involved and parents know, but there will be that national walk-off.
As my friend Sky Rebbettes-Gordy, an early childhood organiser at United Voice in Western Australia, said:
There is just so much evidence supporting the case the EC educators are undervalued is largely because the sector is 97% women. I challenge anyone to refer to a highly educated and highly qualified sector where 97% of the workers are male who earn just $21 an hour.
This issue will not go away. This is long overdue. It is time for the government to act. They might not be the employers—and we've all heard the minister say that—but they are the funders.
Almost 100 per cent of funding to the sector comes from taxpayers—from the federal government—to childcare services across this country. The union has spent four years fighting in the Fair Work Commission, only to have the case dismissed yesterday. Not one cent will go into the pockets of early childhood educators. The commission awarded nothing. They simply threw the case out because, for some reason, the commission failed to be convinced that there was this massive gender pay gap. Paying $21 an hour to early childhood professionals in this country is shameful. It is shameful, and it is time the Turnbull government recognised and valued the work of early childhood educators in this country.
As the saying goes: nothing is certain except for death and taxes. But while taxes will always remain painful, death doesn't need to be. Pain and symptom management, along with being surrounded by family, are most important to people who are dying. Australians deserve to die with dignity and to be surrounded by the people that they love. Sadly, the wishes of thousands of gravely ill Australians to die without pain and to be surrounded by friends and family is going unmet. Why? Because palliative care services fall severely short in Australia and, in particular, in my home state of South Australia.
Families are being forced to helplessly watch someone they love die without receiving adequate care, pain relief, nursing support or information about end-of-life care options. Palliative care helps terminally ill people live the ends of their lives as fully and comfortably as possible. It can be provided at home, in hospitals or at aged care facilities. This specialised care includes pain and symptom management, help for families to talk about sensitive issues, and psychological and spiritual support for the patient and their loved ones. Palliative care, especially in South Australia, has been ignored by the major parties for a very long time.
Palliative care in South Australia is currently in the worst state it's been in since 1980, when it was first implemented in the South Australian health system. At present, the number of people wishing to die at home with the support of community based palliative care services far exceeds the availability of that care, particularly for those with illnesses other than cancer. For many, access to community based palliative care is determined by where they live rather than where they prefer to die. Palliative Care Australia, the peak body, estimates that, while 70 per cent of Australians wish to die at home, only around 14 per cent do: 70 per cent wish to die at home but only 14 per cent do! South Australia, in particular, lags behind the other states, with three out of four South Australians not getting access to palliative care. This is totally unacceptable.
The Productivity Commission released a draft report in June 2017 which examined reforms to human services, and specifically palliative care services. It stated:
Each year, tens of thousands of people approaching the end of life are cared for and die in a place that does not reflect their choice or fully meet their needs. Most people who die do so in two of the least preferred places – hospitals and residential aged care.
The commission also said that patients' end-of-life journey will likely be punctuated with unavoidable or unwanted admissions to hospitals and the confusion, loss of dignity and loss of control that comes with it.
Australians deserve much better than this. The Productivity Commission's draft report argued that reforms in this area should be a high priority for government. The Nick Xenophon Team couldn't agree more. More community based palliative care services are needed to enable more people who wish to die at home to do so. The Productivity Commission also argued that end-of-life care in residential aged care needs to be better resourced and delivered by skilled staff. There are just 213 palliative medicine specialists across all of Australia—213! That should shock everybody in this place. That's just one palliative medicine specialist for every 704 deaths in Australia: 704 for one palliative care specialist! Inadequate funding of palliative care services is a major and damning cause of the pain and stress that terminally ill patients are forced to endure. Many family members feel they have to go it alone in the last few weeks and months to ensure that their loved one has help to use the bathroom, reach a drink or wash, and this causes an enormous amount of strain at an already stressful time. It's incredibly traumatic for many families to see a loved one dying without access to adequate care and support. Better funding for palliative care is essential. South Australia and other states desperately need to regenerate the investment in palliative care so people can be supported to live, die and grieve well.
The government must make palliative care a top priority. The current fragmentation of palliative care services in Australia needs to be addressed by the appointment of a national palliative care commissioner. A national palliative care commissioner should examine existing palliative care services and programs nationally to assess their efficiency and effectiveness in supporting terminally ill individuals and their families to live as well as possible right to the end of life. Palliative Care Australia has outlined the role of a national palliative care commissioner, saying they need to:
very important—
The job description for the national palliative care commissioner is very much detailed and arduous. However, to fail to have a policy overhaul in this area of palliative care is not an option. To quote Dame Cicely Saunders, 'How people die remains in the memory of those who live on.' We are all part of this story. We must do better. Death is inevitable, but dying unsupported should not be.
It is my pleasure to rise during senators' statements today to talk about something from my home state of Tasmania, a very important date that's coming up: 3 March. It's not The Taste of Tasmania festival or Dark Mofo; it's our state election. It's a date on which Tasmanians will have a choice about the future that they want for their state. It's a date on which Tasmanians have a chance to make a choice that secures the state's future. It's a date on which Tasmanians will have the choice of ensuring that the gains that have been made over the last four years of majority Liberal government in Tasmania are locked in. It's a date on which Tasmanians will have a chance, as Senator Singh said on Monday night, to choose between two parties with very distinct policy folios that they are taking to the election. It's a chance for Tasmanians to ensure that they make a choice that the state they live in will go to the next level.
Tasmania is very much at a crossroads at this election. On 3 March, Tasmanians can make one of three choices. They can veer off to the left and vote with Labor and the Greens in Tasmania, two parties that governed our state between the years 2010 and 2014, a disastrous period in our state's history; they can veer off to the right and support the Jacqui Lambie Network and the group of characters that former Senator Lambie has running in our state, some of whom are, disappointingly, before our law courts; or they can go straight ahead and support the party that's been governing Tasmania in a very sensible and balanced way, and in a way that has been achieving for our state and improving our state's stocks—that is, they can support the Hodgman Liberal government.
A lot is said at election time. A lot is said here in this place. A lot is said in the media. But my firm belief is that the best way to actually inform yourself as a Tasmanian voter is to go and test the facts, to go and look at the records of those who are seeking your vote at the election. Go and see what they've done and measure it against what they say they're going to do after the next election, should they be successful. There's a great example going around at the moment of the baseless scare campaign being run by my Labor colleagues from Tasmania around GST—the notion that the state will lose funding because of some report, when we all know that there are some very, very well set out mechanisms that any decision relating to the carve-up of the GST revenue have to go through. It will not happen. That's the thing; it's a baseless scare campaign. We have to look at the facts in these debates.
As part of assessing how the state is performing and how it was performing back in 2014, when the Hodgman Liberal government took over, I think it's good to reflect on where the state was at just those four years ago, when Tasmania was regarded by most across the country as a basket case. We were at the bottom of the heap on all of the economic indicators in most of the reports—the CommSec State of the Statesreport, the Deloitte Access Economics reports, most of our employment figures. Every single indicator on those fronts had us at the bottom of the pack in 2014. We had a government in denial about an education system which was just plainly not serving the people that needed something from it—the students. We had schools finishing at year 10 and the Labor-Greens government at the time thought that was okay. They resisted at every turn the calls to extend our high schools to year 12 to give young people the proper secondary education they deserved. It's happening now, and I'm very pleased about that. That government presided over a broken health system, some facts about which I will talk about in a moment. They wreaked havoc on regional communities, presiding over the closure of the very successful forestry industry in our state. Regional communities right across our state were decimated because Labor had done a deal with the Greens and the price for that deal in our state was the closure of our very successful and viable forestry industry. Small communities right across our state suffered.
It's important, as I say, to look at the facts. Look at jobs as the first indicator. The unemployment rate in 2014, the year the last state election took place, was at 7.5 per cent, one of the highest in the nation against all of our other states and territories. It's currently at 5.9 per cent, a decrease of 1.6 per cent. When we look at jobs, we look at the number of Tasmanians who have jobs now and didn't before. In 2014, 235,200 people were recorded as having jobs or meaningful employment. As at today, 245,500—an increase of 10,300—have jobs; 10,300 Tasmanian families are doing better because they now have the best form of welfare—a job. A job is a way to improve their lives and to improve the chances for the next generation in their family, and something to be proud of. Something I've spoken about a lot in this place is youth employment. The number of young people that had jobs in 2014 was just 34,900. That's increased to 37,300, an increase of almost 3,000 jobs in that same period.
A lot is said about budget management and fiscal responsibility. In 2014, again, when the Liberals took over from Labor and the Greens, the state was running a deficit of $375 million. Today, under the Liberals, we have a budget surplus of $54.3 million. The budget is how we pay for essential services, like doctors and nurses, police and teachers, better roads. That's how we pay for these things, and good budget management allows us to do that and to make Tasmania a better place.
Power prices: we talk about the cost of living a lot. Between 2007 and 2014, power prices in Tasmania went up 65 per cent. We've arrested that increase, that rising power price, and have seen a reduction—a small one, but a reduction, no longer an increase—of 0.4 per cent between 2014-17. We've stopped the outflow of people from Tasmania, with an increase in population, albeit small, of 741 people, in line with the policy to increase Tasmania's population. We've increased the number of frontline police officers that the Giddings Labor-Green government cut. When we came to government there were just 1,120; there are now 1,217, with another 20 officers to graduate in March of this year.
The number of teachers—our education system is very important—was 4,437 in 2014 and 4,545 in 2018. That's over 100 extra teachers in our schools. And we can't forget that the Labor-Green government wanted to close 20 schools in regional communities. They didn't get away with it; the parliament wouldn't let them. Imagine what that would have done for teacher numbers? The retention of students from year 10 to year 12 has gone from 67 per cent to 73 per cent. That is a great indicator of how our policy to extend high school to year 12 is netting results, something the Labor-Green government in Tasmania resisted at every turn.
On the number of elective surgeries: yesterday we heard that the Tasmanian health system is in crisis. Let me tell you this, Mr Acting Deputy President: in 2014, 15,315 elective surgeries were conducted. In 2018 it was 19,187, a 25 per cent increase in the number of elective surgeries being conducted, putting the lie to the fibs that are told by certain people out there in the community. It is something that people need to know the facts about: the report card that is now on the public record. And of course we have 120 additional hospital beds and 350 more hospital staff, including over 255 more nurses. Again, that is a workforce that the Labor-Green government tried to cut, and did cut successfully, sadly, in their 16 years of government—four years of which were with their bedfellows, the Greens.
We've had more visitors coming on the Spirit of Tasmania30 per cent more visitors. We're growing the economy and we're growing jobs, so Tasmanians have a very clear choice. They can return to the dark old days of destruction, cuts and irresponsible decisions—anything to cling onto power—with a Labor-Green-Jacqui Lambie government in Tasmania, or they can vote Liberal and have more of this: taking Tasmania to the next level.
I rise to make a contribution on a matter of special interest to me and, I think, to millions of Australians, and that is road safety.
When the Prime Minister makes a contribution on the radio or on the TV or in a public forum, like most Australians, I keep an ear open to see what his attitude is and what his leadership is going to be. I must say that I was incredibly disappointed at the comments made in an interview with Mr Chris Kenny. I accept that this is not the entire interview; I don't have time to put that in the public arena in this contribution. But I want to place on the public record that the Prime Minister said:
… I'm always in favour of a national approach. But as you know, state governments and state parliaments often have different views. The critical thing is we've seen the death toll going down and now it's coming up again and the question is why?
Amongst other things, he went on to say:
As a federation, the responsibility for road safety is overwhelming with state governments as you know.
Mr Kenny said:
We've had a lot of callers—
And the Prime Minister said:
We have the convening power to bring them together and you know, see what we can do, what changes we can make.
I'm not entirely critical of the Prime Minister not being across this particular area of public policy per se, but I am critical that after five years this government hasn't got its act together on road safety. If I were to point out that we spend $5.397 billion on roads each year—that's the best estimate from the Parliamentary Library—then we would see we have a bit more power than getting states together. The federal entity has a lot more power than just convening meetings of state ministers and saying, 'What do you think is the best way forward?' It is in the public arena. The Australasian College of Road Safety calls on the federal government to:
If the Prime Minister had said any of that in his interview, I would've been much happier—nearly $3.397 billion worth of investment in roads each year, and all we have to do is mandate that the acquitter of that money has a targeted road safety strategy and a star rating on that road. That would mean that Northern Territory roads, where the most horrific statistics exist, would become safer. Western Australian roads, which have the second-highest fatality rate, would become safer. We don't have to rely on convening the six warring states or territories; we just have to focus the government spend on roads targeted towards world's best practice in road design. And, we need to go on and make sure that we only drive the best and safest vehicles in Australia.
The Australian Automobile Association has delivered to every member of this place an assessment of where we're at in road safety. For the objective 'reducing fatalities by 30 per cent', the status is 'fail'. For the objective 'reducing serious injuries by 30 per cent', the status is 'fail'. We can't even measure serious injuries in this country from road accidents. If you can't measure them, how are you going to acquit them and reduce them? Improve vehicle safety. Status: fail. This is not some Labor left-wing think tank; this is the peak group of motorists' representatives. It gets advice from all the jurisdictions and collates it, and it is saying very clearly that the way forward is: reinstate the Federal Office of Road Safety.
It goes on to say: remove tariffs and taxes to make safer cars cheaper, mandate autonomous braking technology, mandate lane-keeping assist, and put in place technologies that cope when human beings fail. If you look at the industry in this space, you've got the CEO of Toll, who used to be the CEO of Linfox, a 40-year veteran of the transport industry, writing to the Prime Minister and saying: 'We need a national licensing scheme. We need people in heavy transport to be fit and proper people, as they are in the UK, to run transport systems. We need a national licensing scheme that holds managers and drivers accountable so that unsafe operators out there cannot continue to risk the lives of others.'
There is abundant evidence that we can do really good work in this space, and it is an apolitical issue. There is not an electorate in this country that is not touched by a motor vehicle accident or a motor vehicle injury almost every day. For every 100,000 people in your electorate, five of them will die—that's what the stats are saying. We have a Prime Minister who is obviously not up to speed on this issue. The fault clearly lies with the respective ministers of transport over the last five years, and they need to get off their collective office chairs and put in place good, sensible practices to reduce the toll, reduce the injuries and kick back into the economy a growth figure. Thirty-odd billion dollars is lost to the economy as a cost of accidents, deaths and injuries.
Debate interrupted.
Before we move to question time, I'd like to make a short statement following issues that arose yesterday. As senators well know, standing order 193 prohibits the use of offensive words, imputations of improper motives and personal reflections against a member of either chamber. Any such breach is highly disorderly, and an offending senator will be required to withdraw. However, debate in this chamber rests on more than simple rules and standing orders; it is also dependent upon the tone and context of language used by senators. When a senator finds a term offensive, there has often been a request and consent to withdraw a term, although not always and not necessarily with a formal ruling from the chair about it being disorderly. This approach has usually ensured vigorous debate that is at the same time respectful. I would urge all senators to be mindful of all these rules, customs and practices when debating issues in this chamber.
I particularly urge senators to give serious thought to the use of epithets or labels or to ascribing views to other senators when precision of language might more appropriately focus on specific actions or events that are the subject of debate. This is particularly important when dealing with contentious issues and will assist in avoiding crossing the line into disorderly reflections on individuals or imputation of improper motives, including accidentally.
My question is to Senator McKenzie, the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to reports today that leaked COAG documents reveal that the Turnbull government intends to lock in public hospital cuts for seven years. Can the minister confirm the Turnbull government is planning to lock in its current, insufficient funding for hospitals?
Thank you, Senator Polley, for your question. However, I'm going to have to completely reject the assumptions on which your question is based—the assumption that there are cuts to the Commonwealth government's investment, our ongoing increasing, record level of Commonwealth funding to every single state and every single territory, year on year. In fact, when I look at the figures, as far as the eye can see there's increasing funding. That's going to mean more doctors, more nurses, more services and more surgeries in public hospitals right across this nation. And that's a good story, because our world-class health system in this nation is underpinned by the partnership that exists between our Commonwealth health system and indeed our state governments.
But when we look at Labor and your phantom funding—I mean, really. Let's go to shadow minister King's tragedy of a press conference this morning. Whoever the reporter is, whoever it is out there, please make yourself known; some fantastic questions were asked, questions that the shadow minister did not have the answers to, questions about: how was Labor going to fund its phantom funding? But, again—like the Gonski promise, like the NDIS promise—nada, nothing.
I'm very happy to go to the Labor Party's most important policy document, and it's shadow minister King's 'National platform on health', 18 pages of some really interesting things around the health portfolio. Promoting wellness, preventing disease, some great initiatives—no dollars. When we go to public funding for hospitals—
Order! Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Collins.
Mr President, on a point of order: the minister has been asked a question about the Turnbull government's health policies. She is straying very far from that and, indeed, she has not addressed the issue at all in relation to the leaked COAG documents. It's all well and good to hear her reflect her opinion on shadow minister King, but she is not answering the question.
Thank you. Senator Cormann on the point of order.
On the point of order: the question that was asked was in relation to alleged funding cuts. The minister directly answered that question in referring to funding increases. Indeed, of course, funding increased by 73 per cent compared to Labor's last-year budget for 2020-21. The minister was being directly relevant to the question.
The minister was being relevant to the question as asked at the beginning of the question. In the three seconds remaining, Senator McKenzie, I'd remind you of the nature of the question.
As the finance minister— (Time expired)
I have a supplementary. The extension of the Turnbull government's public hospital cuts comes in addition to its proposed cuts to the distribution of GST revenue of $557 million to South Australia and $168 million to Tasmania. Isn't it clear that the only way South Australians and Tasmanians can ensure a quality healthcare system is to elect governments who are willing to stand up to the Turnbull government?
Thank you, Senator Polley, for your little campaign message for the South Australian and Tasmanian elections. But, in terms of the proposed new agreement, as said in my earlier answer, what we are taking to COAG on Friday is a promise and a commitment to work with state and territory governments to provide more services, more doctors, more nurses and more surgeries.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I know you don't want to hear it. I know you don't want to hear about our multibillion-dollar investment that we want to make with state governments, but they are the facts. Every year, we commit to a record funding amount in each and every state and each and every territory. And you know what? It shouldn't come as a surprise. If you look at the communiques from the previous health minister's COAG meetings all through last year, this meeting was going to be all about sustainable funding models between the Commonwealth and state governments to provide funding for our world-class health system.
Senator Polley, a final supplementary question.
Does the minister agree with the AMA, which has called on the government to 'lift public hospitals out of their current funding crisis, which is putting doctors and patients at risk'?
I'm sure the government—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I'll call the minister when there's some semblance of order in the chamber. Senator Collins. Senator Abetz. Senator McKenzie.
Thank you, Mr President. Senator Polley, thank you again for your supplementary question. Through you, Mr President: the governments of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland as they head in to Friday's discussion need to think about the flatlining of their funding to their own public hospitals.
Senator Polley on a point of order?
Mr President, I know you've given the new minister some leeway, but she is not relevant to what I asked about the AMA. It's a pretty simple question to answer. Can she try and be relevant—I know maybe not honest.
Order, Senator Polley. That's not appropriate for a point of order. Senator McKenzie, I remind you of the question.
There is one thing I do agree with the AMA on, and that's that the Labor Party's private health insurance—
Order! Senator Wong on a point of order?
We've given this minister a number of opportunities. The point of order is direct relevance. She's been asked whether she agrees with the call of the AMA for the government to lift public hospitals out of the current funding crisis, which is putting patients at risk. How is talking about opposition policy on private health insurance possibly relevant to that question?
Between that and the previous point of order, all I heard from Senator McKenzie was 'agree with the AMA'. I remind her of the question asked by Senator Polley. There was a bit of noise in the chamber; I didn't hear what came after that phrase. I remind Senator McKenzie of the question with 26 seconds left to answer.
Thank you very much, Mr President. The AMA, pointing—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
She hasn't started! Why don't you stop interjecting and listen to the answer. You might learn something.
Senator Scullion, that wasn't helpful.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order on my left and my right!
I am looking forward to, coming out of COAG, a sustainable funding arrangement for public hospital funding in this country, where Commonwealth government, as we have committed to do, puts year-on-year record funding and to the public health system and state governments— (Time expired)
Before I call the next question, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives, the Rt Hon. Trevor Mallard MP. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite the Speaker to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Mr Mallard was then seated accordingly.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. As one of the only regional senators in Queensland, I am constantly hearing about the need for more jobs in regional Queensland, particularly the opportunities for more jobs and investment for the Galilee Basin. Minister, what sort of support is the development of the Galilee Basin receiving?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question and his long interest in developing the resources of Queensland, including our world-class coal resources. Many Queenslanders support Senator O'Sullivan and me in our quest to get these resources developed so we can provide jobs and income for the Queensland people.
Senator Williams interjecting—
Yes, Senator Williams—through you, Mr President—including a former CFMEU delegate and Labor Party candidate at the last state election, Michael Brunker. He's standing up for his people, one of the few Queensland Labor people standing up for his people. He said this morning:
To win one seat in frickin Melbourne, they have wiped out their chances of two or three seats here in the coal belt.
… … …
I'm an old unionist too … I grew up in the mines … for her—
that is, Ged Kearney—
to sit there in Melbourne and basically wipe us, to forget about the guys in the mining industry, it's just disgraceful.
That is from the words of a Labor candidate at the Queensland election just months ago. He knows the Labor Party have now forgotten them. They are seeking to wipe them out just to win a seat in Melbourne. Jim Pearce, also a former CFMEU delegate and a state member of parliament for the Australian Labor Party, said:
There is strong support for the mine—
that is, the Carmichael mine—
going ahead in this region and I think anybody relying on support from that area would be fooling themselves if they go against the mine.
But that is what the Australian Labor Party want to do now. They are going against the interests of Queensland to line up in Batman.
The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, said yesterday these are all fake jobs—they're fake jobs, right? Well, actually these are real jobs in North and Central Queensland, and the only thing coming out of the Leader of the Opposition's mouth is fake news, because he's a fake leader who can't stand up to the left faction in his party. He is no longer a leader, because he is just following the tune of the Greens in Melbourne to try and win votes there while he forgets about and wipes out the people of North Queensland.
Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?
How are the efforts to develop the Galilee Basin already contributing to regional Queensland?
Already the development of the Galilee Basin is employing people. It can employ a lot more if the project proceeds and gets going. Yesterday the Adani company confirmed they're employing 800 people right now. They're employing 235 people in the job-starved town of Townsville, a town that's desperate for jobs. A lot of those people in their Townsville office, some of whom I've met, have moved themselves and their families from Brisbane to Townsville because Adani moved their headquarters there.
These are the people that Bill Shorten wants to put out of a job. He wants to put them and their families out of a job after they've upturned their life to move to Townsville for a new opportunity. I think that's disgraceful. It's not just the mine, though: John Wagner, a businessman in Toowoomba, is employing 15 people at the moment. He says that he can employ 100 more if the project goes ahead. I want those hundred jobs for the Toowoomba region—as I'm sure Senator O'Sullivan does.
Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question.
What further benefits could the opening of the Galilee Basin bring to regional Queensland?
As I was saying, the development of a mine like this creates economic opportunity right around Queensland and places like Queensland, but also right around Australia as well, because Adani have committed to use Australian steel on their rail line. It will be one of the few mineral based rail lines in this country that use Australian steel. The steel would be from Whyalla, so the people of Whyalla will get more economic opportunity in South Australia from this.
You would think that a former president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions would support the steel industry and would support the coalmining sector, but, instead, she's down there in Melbourne lining up with the Greens to say no to all these thousands of jobs. It's an indictment of the current state of the Australian Labor Party. They were formed under a tree in Barcaldine and they used to represent the shearers. They used to represent the people who worked out in the bush, but now they're so busy sipping lattes in the inner city and lining up for acai bowls in Melbourne that they've forgotten about the jobs and the people in rural and regional Australia.
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. On 30 January the Minister for Defence Industry said that the definition of local build was a minimum of 60 per cent Australian content. The frigate tender documents released under FOI specify a minimum of only 50 per cent. Which is correct, Minister Pyne's statement or the tender documents?
I thank Senator Gallacher for the question. What I think the senator will find, if he looks in closer detail at the tender documents—
That's a big ask!
That's true, Senator Abetz—I will take that interjection. What I think Senator Gallacher will find, if he looks more closely at the tender documents, is that the 50 per cent Australian industry content that was achieved on the Air Warfare Destroyer Program was provided to the future frigate participants in the tender documents to which he refers, with the guidance that the Australian industry content of the future frigate program is expected to be higher. As you know, the government has been completely clear—I have, the Prime Minister has and Minister Pyne has—that we are not in the business of mandating percentages in the major programs, because our focus is on maximising industry participation within capability, within cost and within scheduled requirements. That is the approach we have taken consistently. The reason we don't want to mandate specific percentages is that we don't want to be in the business of capping Australian industry participation without delivering the best capability for Navy and creating a highly competitive and productive Australian industry base.
What is important as well is that each of the future frigate tender participants—and I have spoken about them in this chamber before—have developed an Australian industry capability plan, as part of their required tender responses, which describes how they intend to (1) maximise opportunities for small to medium Australian suppliers in both the build and sustainment phases, and (2) transition their existing supply chains to Australian supply chains and explore opportunities to integrate Australian suppliers into their global supply chains.
So the Australian shipbuilding industry will be absolutely, fundamentally and completely involved in the build and sustainment of the future frigates. It will include direct and indirect involvement across the supply chain and support service, and will create thousands of jobs.
Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for her very comprehensive answer, which we will need to go through in detail. On 9 October last year the minister said about Australian industry participation in the Future Submarine project, 'Some people say they want a percentage on that, but I don't see why you'd want to put a floor on an item like that.' Given that we have seen the Minister for Defence Industry apply a percentage—now shown to be false—how does the minister reconcile her views with those of the Minister for Defence Industry?
There is absolutely no inconsistency. What the Minister for Defence Industry has observed is that in previous discussions there have been generally accepted views around at least 60 per cent. But the government's approach—consistently across the Prime Minister, me and the Minister for Defence Industry—is to absolutely maximise Australian industry engagement. I myself have attended—
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Yes, on direct relevance. The Minister for Defence Industry said a 'minimum' of 60 per cent. How on earth is a discussion about a maximum relevant to a minimum?
Senator Wong, I consider the minister to be directly relevant to the question.
I'm enjoying enormously talking about Australian industry participation in the naval shipbuilding industry. One of the reasons that it is such an enjoyable exercise for me is that there is not one single person on the other side who can speak with any authority on this matter. Do you know why, Mr President? It's because in the entire term of the Labor government—let me remind you, 2007-2013—not one single order was placed for one single ship to be built in Australia. Not one!
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question.
Isn't it clear that, despite losing out on the plan to send submarine jobs offshore, the Turnbull government continues to undermine local content in Australia's defence industry?
That really does bring the Labor Party's interest and engagement in this issue to a level of low farce that even I'm surprised by. Of course, their Australian industry content in naval shipbuilding was zero per cent. That would be the difference.
) ( ): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan. On Monday, a group of prominent scientists and economists released the Murray-Darling Declaration, showing that there's no scientific evidence that the billions of dollars that taxpayers have spent on water recovery projects under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan have achieved any increase in net stream flows. The Chairperson of the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations, Fred Hooper, is in the gallery today. On his behalf, I'd like to ask you: why is it that taxpayers and downstream communities are spending billions of dollars and yet the river is still dying?
I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question. That is not the government's view. The government's view is not that this plan has not delivered increased water and stream flows to the Murray-Darling system. Indeed, the government so far has already recovered more than a thousand gigalitres of water through buybacks, and we are making progress towards the 2,090-gigalitre amount that will be got to before any adjustment mechanism is set and/or the extra water from the up-water process is factored in. This is a significant achievement for our country, to have established a Basin Plan. It's a plan that went through both houses of parliament many years ago, and we remain fully committed to ensuring the plan is delivered on time and in full. Obviously there are a lot of matters to work out through that process. There remain discussions with the state and territory governments to occur.
I recognise that here in this place the Greens are trying to derail the plan themselves through a number of disallowance motions. The Greens have never been satisfied with a balanced economic, social and environmental outcome in the basin. They have always sought to achieve a figure that would destroy many economic communities and cost thousands of jobs. Indeed, one of the disallowance motions goes to the Northern Basin Review. The Northern Basin Review is something that was kicked off by the former Labor government. It's gone through years of consultation with different groups, looking at the figures, particularly in the northern basin. That review came back saying that we could reduce the recovery in the northern basin by 70 gigalitres and that would save 200 jobs. I think those jobs are pretty important in towns like Collarenebri and Dirranbandi. These places deserve to be considered as well. Now that the MDBA has recommended these changes that are part of the plan, we should all get together as a parliament and see this plan delivered so we can get better environmental outcomes while we think of all of those Australians who rely on the river for their town water and their jobs.
Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.
As part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, we're spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on what is meant to be improving flows for the environment, but as much as 75 per cent of surface diversions are not even metered. How on earth can you be sure that taxpayers are getting value for money and that the water that you've bought back is actually there?
As I've said, while the Greens are trying to derail this plan, we are committed to ensuring that the recommendations of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the independent statutory agency, are met. I remember that, when the MDBA first released an exposure draft to the original plan, the Greens were supporting the MDBA because they came up with a position that they wanted.
Senator Canavan, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, a point of order?
A point of order on relevance, Mr President. I asked about the metering of water diversions, and the minister hasn't responded.
I remind the minister of the question regarding the metering and the flows.
Thank you, Mr President. We are confident that the plan will be delivered according to the recommendations of the MDBA, and we are committed to ensuring the independence of that organisation. The Greens want to have it both ways. When an independent body recommends something they agree with, they want to sign up to it and use that independence as a crutch for their arguments. When that same independent body has a different view, they then criticise it and want to derail it. You can't have it both ways. We want to commit to this plan and we want to deliver it in a bipartisan way, working with the states. Doing so will be good for the environment.
Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?
My final supplementary question goes to the Northern Basin Advisory Committee's final report to the government on the Murray Darling Basin Authority. In that report they say, 'Current compliance regimes are poorly resourced and ineffective.' This is the government's own advisory body. How on earth can you be assured that upstream irrigators aren't ripping off the taxpayer?
Senator Hanson-Young, I am aware of a number of investigations state governments have launched, both in Queensland and New South Wales. As you are probably aware, there's been a major review in New South Wales into compliance by Mr Ken Matthews, who is a very respected policy analyst in this area. We are fully committed to working with the state and territories to improve their systems as a result of those inquiries. We will be working to make sure that that occurs.
As I said earlier, the northern basin review the senator referred to was the result of four years of consultation. It was kicked off by the former Labor government. It is making recommendations that we are committed to implementing. It will save 200 jobs. It will mean that we can protect the environment and deliver the objectives of the Basin Plan, as well as making sure we do so in a way that minimises that economic impact. We think that parties here should try and commit to this because it's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get together and work for the betterment of the basin. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation, Senator Cash. Can the minister outline the recent ABS jobs figures released for the 2017 calendar year? How does this performance compare to previous years?
I thank Senator Bushby for the question. I'm delighted to advise that 2017, under this government, was a record year for job creation, with 403,100 jobs created in the calendar year of 2017. That's what the Australian people want to see. Of those 403,100 jobs, in excess of 300,000 of them were full-time jobs. That's right—full-time jobs. This is actually the biggest increase in the number of jobs since records began in 1978. This is a fantastic result for all Australians.
The interesting comparison is this: let's compare the result to the last 12 months of the former Labor government. Colleagues, under Labor, in their last 12 months, jobs growth was less than 89,000. Compare 403,000 to 89,000. Colleagues, it gets even more stark when you look at the number of full-time jobs in the last 12 months of the former Labor government. It went backwards. That's right—it went backwards by more than 18,000 jobs.
What we on this side of the chamber understand is that you've got to get the economic fundamentals right to ensure job creation. That is exactly what the Turnbull government is doing. That is why, under our government, total employment is at an all-time high, with 12.4 million Australians employed. The level of employment has increased for 15 successive months. This is another record high. We're delivering on our commitment to jobs and growth.
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise how the Turnbull government is getting people into work?
As I was saying, the 2017 year is the first year on record in which the number of jobs has increased every single month. Our policies are working. The economy is creating jobs. But you also need to deliver policies that will actively get Australians who are on welfare off welfare and into work, and that is also what this government does. For example, our massive investment in getting our youth off welfare and into work via our Youth Jobs PaTH program is giving our youth the ability to improve their job readiness, their work experience and move away from a lifetime of welfare. The ParentsNext program actively works with parents who are in need. More than 96 per cent of them are women. It helps them move off welfare and into work when their children start school. And we're also assisting youth with the Transition to Work program. We are keeping Australians working.
Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any public commentary about these figures?
I am. Colleagues, you'll be pleased to know that even the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, faced with these figures, admitted at the National Press Club recently that he too was pleased with the jobs growth under the Turnbull government. This is what he said:
We're pleased with it. There are jobs growing, we're pleased with that … it's excellent.
And colleagues, I agree—it is excellent. The creation of in excess of 400,000 jobs is due to the policies that the Turnbull government is putting in place.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
But it's one thing to say, 'It's great to have jobs growth.' What the Leader of the Opposition now needs to do is support the policies that are enabling the economy to do just that. Where is he, colleagues, on our enterprise tax plan? Our enterprise tax plan will benefit around 3.2 million small and medium businesses, the backbone of our economy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is all about creating jobs—where does Bill Shorten stand on it? (Time expired)
My question is to Minister Payne, representing the Minister for Defence Industry, and relates to definitions around sovereign defence industry. In last week's release of the government's Defence Export Strategy, which I broadly support, 'Australian defence industry' was defined as consisting of:
… businesses with an Australian Business Number …
Surely this can't be correct. Surely it's not that simple. Surely in order to be considered a part of Australian defence industry, and indeed to get access to Commonwealth grants, a company must have firmly demonstrated a commitment to our country by having created and sustained jobs, having invested in skilling the workforce, having made capital investments, having developed intellectual property and having developed product. Can the minister explain how the government came to the view that to be considered Australian defence industry a business only needs to have an ABN?
I thank Senator Patrick for what is a very important question about the government's Defence Export Strategy. We were very pleased to release Australia's first ever defence export strategy last week. The strategy is part of our defence industry policy to deliver the defence capability that is necessary to achieve the strategy which we set out in the 2016 Defence white paper. The definition of 'Australian defence industry', to which Senator Patrick refers, in the Defence Export Strategy reflects the continuity with the 2016 Defence industry policy statement—which I happen to have here because I carry it with me everywhere—and its broad definition of Australia's diverse defence industry base and how Australian industry is considered as part of the Australian Industry Capability Program.
The reason that the defence industry policy statement and the subsequent release of the export strategy is important for Australia is because it demonstrates our ambition for this country—for our defence forces, for our defence industry and for the Australian economy indeed. We think it's an ambitious and positive plan to boost the Australian economy, to increase investment and to create more jobs for Australian businesses. All of that said, what it fundamentally will do is enable us to deliver capability for the ADF.
The strategic goal is to achieve greater export success to build a stronger, more sustainable, more globally competitive Australian defence industry to, as I said, support Australia's defence capability needs. What the strategy does is bring together all of the levers available to government, to Defence and to industry to provide end-to-end support for defence exports, whether that's building defence export readiness, identifying export opportunities and to ultimately realising export outcomes. The companies that export are more successful, they are more profitable, they are more stable and they are more able to support the development of ADF capability. (Time expired)
Senator Patrick, a supplementary question.
The government has indicated that it will release the definition of what constitutes 'sovereign industry capability' in their sovereign industry capability assessment framework. Can the minister confirm that the shallow and entirely inappropriate definition of Australian defence industry released last week will not be the same definition that is adopted in the assessment framework and will instead take on a broader definition with similar characteristics to those described in my primary question?
I think there are some aspects of Senator Patrick's question which use perhaps slightly confusing terminology, but let me see if I can understand the direction you were heading, Senator Patrick. It's the defence industrial capability plan, of which the sovereign industrial capability assessment program is a part, which is currently under development by the department and the Minister for Defence Industry and myself. That plan will include a number of sovereign industrial capability priorities. They will be the key industrial capabilities that need to be resident in Australia to ensure the defence of our nation. Those sovereign industrial capability priorities will focus on those industrial capabilities that are highest priorities for Defence in supporting their operational and capability needs, rather than broader consideration of the Australian defence industry base and its diverse capabilities and support for Defence. The defence industrial capability plan itself— (Time expired)
Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question.
Noting that the government has already awarded a Pacific patrol boat contract, a future submarine contract and an APV contract—for which I congratulate you—can the minister confirm the date that the sovereign industry capability assessment framework, which will define sovereign capability, will be released? In other words, will the definition of 'sovereign industry capability' come before or after the Future Frigate tender is announced, that being the last step in the government's submarine shipbuilding— (Time expired)
I can advise the Senate that the plan for the release of the defence industrial capability plan, which will include those priorities to which I referred in my previous response, is scheduled for government consideration and release in the first half of 2018. That framework, as I've said, is one part of the whole ecosystem of the Turnbull government's support for the Australian defence industry and indeed the broader industrial base. In fact, it's almost two weeks to the day that the Prime Minister and I launched the defence white paper and its accompanying defence industry policy statement here. And what we've seen every day since then is a significantly expanding engagement by Australian defence industry, grasping the opportunities that the government is offering them, because of our investment in defence capability over the next decade. For Senator Patrick's information, that release is scheduled for the first half of 2018.
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. First of all, I'd like to congratulate her on her answer yesterday to Senator Di Natale's question; mine is also in relation to defence. In this case, could the minister update the Senate on Australia's work with regional partners to counter the spread of terrorism in our region?
I do appreciate Senator Reynolds' question and her interest in key issues of defence and strategic policy. Terrorism in our region, as we know, is a collective challenge that requires a collective response. Australia, in particular, is strongly committed to working with our partners across the region, across the Indo-Pacific, to prevent the spread of terrorism. Last week I hosted the inaugural Sub-regional Defence Ministers Meeting on Counter-Terrorism in Perth, which brought together ministers and military and Defence officials from Australia, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, to work to strengthen our counterterrorism cooperation in the region.
We have seen in recent operations against Daesh and their affiliates in the Philippines, for example, that defence forces can play a vital role in working with law enforcement agencies to disrupt the efforts of terrorist groups and their free operation in our region. We have had success against Daesh in the Middle East but what we must do here in South-East Asia particularly is to guard against becoming a new front line for terrorism, including of course the possibility, as we know, that some extremists will attempt to return to this region.
Denying terrorist groups a foothold in our region is a vital mission for regional defence forces. The Perth meeting was invaluable in building that cooperation—the collective capacity of Australia and our regional partners—to disrupt and to defeat terrorists at their source. The meeting was a very strong indication that, across the regions, nations are working together proactively to ensure the security of our region.
We know that the threat of terrorism crosses all borders. It's not something that can be addressed by any one country alone, which is why the Perth meeting was so important to ensuring that we're coordinating our efforts to defeat this threat, and why it was such an important Australian initiative.
Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for that answer. Can she also advise the Senate on the outcomes of the sub-regional defence ministers' meeting held in Perth?
I thank Senator Reynolds again. We had some very constructive and valuable discussions in Perth on the challenges that we all face.
We certainly acknowledged that the events in Marawi in the Philippines have been a clarion call for decisive measures to deal with and to anticipate new threats in our region. We can't do that without working together. We affirmed our commitment to work together to address this threat. We particularly agreed to improve defence information and intelligence sharing, and to explore the challenges and opportunities that exist around working on maritime counterterrorism activities.
So long as terrorism remains a critical global threat, fora such as the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus and this new, focused Sub-Regional Defence Ministers' Meeting on Counter-Terrorism will continue to be very important in bringing our regional militaries together to share insights and improve cooperation. Indonesia will host the next meeting in 2019. I thank all of those nations who participated. (Time expired)
Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister advise how else Australia is working with its regional partners to prevent the spread of terrorism?
We are doing a great deal of work with our regional partners and allies across the region, particularly to prevent foreign fighters from spreading their toxic extremism in the Indo-Pacific. We continue of course, as I've said in the chamber before, to support our counter-Daesh campaigns in Iraq and in Syria. The continued success of the Iraqi security forces is very important to discrediting Daesh's narrative of success and their ability to export their extremism to the Indo-Pacific.
Importantly, at the moment we have members of the ADF working to support the armed forces of the Philippines through the deployment of our mobile training teams to share the insights that we have learned through our campaign against Daesh. We have an extensive program of counterterrorism engagement and capacity-building activities with our regional partners that include special forces training exercises, for example, with Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Singapore, Japan and Brunei. We do counter-IED training with the Royal Thai Armed Forces and the Royal Thai Police. These are very valuable relationships— (Time expired)
Making it three from three, my question is to the Minister for Defence, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
On Friday, US pop star Robyn Fenty, aka Rihanna, tweeted to the foreign minister and the Prime Minister, asking Australia to give $200 million to the Global Partnership for Education. The Global Partnership for Education is chaired by former Prime Minister Gillard, who has strong links with the United Nations and historical links to the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation. Within hours of Ms Fenty's tweet, the foreign minister responded in kind—emojis and all—that the Australian taxpayer would throw another $90 million at the global partnership. My question is: was this gift of taxpayer money stage managed with Ms Fenty's management for good publicity or did she simply read the tweet and think 'Okay, RiRi there's a lazy $90 million for you'?
I have spoken to DFAT advisors about this issue. Australia was already in the process of providing some support to the global group in question, which had nothing to do with any social media of any sort as I understand it. I will seek further information from the foreign minister, but I am confident that that is the case and that is the answer to Senator Bernardi's question.
Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question?
Australia's debt levels are heading for $600 billion in the forward estimates, hence my move to reinstate a debt ceiling designed to ensure governments and parliaments think twice before making ill-conceived kneejerk funding decisions. Given the minister's assurances on this, is the $90 million that the foreign minister pledged to Ms Fenty going to come from the 2017-18 foreign aid budget, the 2018-19 foreign aid budget, or some glorious foundation for pleasing globalist pop stars?
It's probably important that Senator Bernardi doesn't give up his day job and turn to stand-up comedy for his next role. One thing I can say is that the decision the foreign minister made was made on 15 January—just to be clear about the date—and that, in terms of support for the Global Partnership for Education, our commitment to $90 million over three years extends from 2018 to 2020. These are multilateral pledges that are considered very carefully in the context of overall investment in the sector as well as the broader Australian budget. In terms of the GP itself, I can indicate that, in terms of some of its results, 72 million more children were in primary school in 2015 in GP partner countries than was the case in 2002. For the education of girls and boys, the partnership provides— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Yesterday, the minister told the Senate that there is no proposal to cut the distribution of GST revenue to South Australia and Tasmania, but today we read in The Advertiser that Minister Birmingham intends to fight the government plan to reform how the GST is carved up. Who is misleading the people of South Australia: Minister Cormann, or Minister Birmingham and his South Australian colleagues?
I thank Senator Farrell for that question. Senator Farrell will be pleased to hear that Senator Birmingham and I are of one mind, and that is that there is nothing to fight. I should tell you that you shouldn't always believe everything that is written in the newspaper, because it does happen on occasion that newspapers cut corners and write things that are not entirely accurate.
What I said yesterday is 100 per cent true: there is no proposal right now before government. What is taking place right now—and it's a matter of public record and was announced by the Treasurer some time ago—is a Productivity Commission inquiry into horizontal fiscal equalisation to assess to what extent horizontal fiscal equalisation is impacting on national productivity and growth. That will ultimately report. So far there's been a draft report, of course, as we've also discussed. Earlier this week the Productivity Commission asked the Treasurer for a delay in the date for the delivery of the final report. When that report has been received, the government will consider it.
I confirm what I said to the Senate consistently all week: there is no proposal before government along the lines the Labor Party has suggested. I think you'll find that Senator Birmingham, who is nodding—because Hansard doesn't pick up nods—and I are 100 per cent on the same page.
Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?
Yes, I do have a supplementary question. The Productivity Commission draft report that you've just referred to proposes cuts in the distribution of GST revenue of $557 million to South Australia and $168 million to Tasmania. Will the minister now rule out any cuts to South Australia's and Tasmania's share of the GST?
We're now going over old ground. You're just asking the same question that was asked earlier this week. What I would say to you again is that the Productivity Commission draft report is not a government report—it's not a government proposal—it's a draft report to government. It is currently the subject of further consultation—
Order, Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order.
This is the second time this week the Minister for Finance and the Leader of the Government in the Senate has been asked a direct question, which is to rule out any cuts to the GST to South Australia and Tasmania. We're giving him another opportunity to rule it out.
Order! Senator Cormann is directly addressing the terms of the question. Senator Cormann.
There is no proposal to cut GST to South Australia and Tasmania, and Senator Wong knows it. This is just another Labor attempt to mislead the Australian people. There is a process underway and, ultimately, if the federal government were to adopt certain recommendations in the final report that is yet to be received, that would be subject to appropriate processes, including through the Council of Australian Governments and, ultimately, to the requirement of unanimous agreement amongst all state and territory governments. This is just further Labor Party scaremongering, because you haven't got anything better to talk about.
Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Given that the minister and the Turnbull government have again refused to rule out cuts to South Australia and Tasmania's share of the GST, isn't it now clear that Liberal senators will say one thing in their home state but tow the Liberal line in Canberra?
I completely reject the premise of the question. No amount of twisting, turning, spinning and whatever by Senator Farrell is going to change the fact that there is no proposal before government along the lines that Senator Farrell is suggesting. So, from that point of view, I fully reject the premise of the question.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister update the Senate on the government's new childcare package? How many families will benefit from the package?
I thank Senator Paterson for his question and indeed for his interest in the Turnbull government's growing investment in supporting Australian families to make choices about when they work, the days they work, the hours they work and ensure that they're empowered to make choices that best support them, their families and their circumstances to manage work and family obligations. Nearly one million Australian families will benefit as a result of the Turnbull government's decision to back hardworking Australian families to be able to make such choices about their work and family arrangements.
We're investing around $2.5 billion, but we're managing to target investment not just by investing more but by better targeting what is currently spent in relation to support for childcare subsidies. That's because we're putting in place a clear activity test that ensures that families who are working the longest hours, studying or volunteering are the ones who will receive the greatest level of support. We also recognise that additional support for access to early education is essential for vulnerable families, which is why we equally established a $1.2 billion childcare safety net.
The benefits in Senator Paterson's home state of Victoria will be that around 75 per cent of families will be better off—many of them better off to the tune of some thousands of dollars per annum. In Western Australia, for example, around 72 per cent—I see Senator Reynolds sitting there next to Senator Paterson—of families will equally benefit. Tasmania, which has been a topic of discussion today—and I see Senator Duniam, on the other side of Senator Paterson—will see some 85 per cent of families of hardworking, low- and middle-income families benefit. And, in my home state of South Australia, some 80 per cent of families will clearly benefit as a result of these reforms. Even in Ms Rishworth the shadow minister's own electorate, 83.6 per cent of families stand to benefit. I'm amazed that she had the gall to vote against these reforms.
Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.
Minister, what settings in the package particularly benefit families?
A number of changes in this package will benefit families. At this time of year, many families are already struggling because their childcare rebate cap has been hit—the $7,500 ceiling. This means, from now until the end of the financial year, those families would be paying the full amount of their childcare costs, inhibiting their ability to earn a living whilst their children are being cared for.
Our reforms will ensure that for low- and middle-income families—all families earning less than around $185,000 per annum—that ceiling will be removed so that they will be able to work the number of days that best suit them without those childcare costs being an impediment to their contribution to the economy or to their decisions in terms of how they manage their work and family obligations. We see as well increased support in the rate of subsidy, again targeted at the lowest-income hardest-working Australian families.
Senator Paterson, final supplementary question.
Minister, what do families need to do in order to benefit from the childcare package?
Vote Labor!
I heard Senator Farrell's interjection there! Of course, the Labor Party voted against the Turnbull government's childcare reforms. The Labor Party apparently said hardworking low-income Australian families didn't deserve the thousands of dollars extra that they're going to receive in support from the Turnbull government. The Labor Party thought those Australian families didn't deserve to have the choice to be able to work more hours or more days to support their families. That's what happens if people vote Labor.
The Labor Party thought it could go to the last election with effectively no childcare policy, while the Turnbull government went with a comprehensive policy that we've now delivered. In around five months time, that will take effect. Between now and then, Australian families will receive clear information about the steps they need to take to update their information to make sure that they register appropriately to receive the maximum benefit. Indeed, since the middle of last year, essentially, we've had a childcare estimator out so that families are able to plan clearly for their future and make sure they know how this package of reforms will benefit them. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the Prime Minister, who on Sunday said, 'We have already provided middle-income tax relief.' The Parliamentary Budget Office report Changes in average personal income tax rates: distributional impacts shows that average tax rates on middle-income earners are expected to rise to 20-plus year highs. Who is correct, the Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Budget Office?
I thank Senator Ketter for that question. I seem to remember that Senator Ketter is the chair of the Senate Economics References Committee—I see him nodding, so he is still the chair. In that capacity, I'm sure he would be aware that we actually passed through this parliament personal income tax cuts, lifting one of the marginal tax rates at the average income level from $80,000 to $87,000 a year. So of course the Prime Minister's correct.
Let me say that the contrast at the next election couldn't be more stark. Going into the next election, the Labor Party wants to increase the tax burden on the economy by more than $165 billion, putting investment and jobs at risk and making it harder for businesses to be successful. Thus, business under the Labor socialist agenda would be less successful because of a higher tax burden. What would that mean? Less successful businesses will be able to hire fewer people and pay them lower wages.
Senator Cameron keeps talking about wanting higher wages. We're all in favour of higher wages. But you know what? Higher wages don't grow on trees. Higher wages are paid for by successful and profitable businesses, which is why this government continues to work to help businesses be more successful and profitable so they can hire more Australians and pay them better wages. And yes, we will deliver personal income tax relief because we have been able to get the budget back under control. We inherited a rapidly deteriorating budget position. We've been able to turn that around and we will be able to deliver the dividend for the Australian people, for hardworking families. We will be able to deliver personal income tax cuts. Labor will want to continue to increase taxes by more than $165 billion.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left. Senator Ketter, a supplementary question.
On Sunday, the Prime Minister discussed the same thing as the minister's just said and claimed middle-income tax relief had been provided 'by increasing the $80,000 threshold up to $87,000.' Can the minister confirm that a worker earning $85,000 a year will lose the full benefit of last year's sandwich and milkshake tax cut and actually end up paying more in income tax?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Order on my left.
What I can confirm is that the Australian worker will always be better off under a coalition government than under a Labor government. Let me tell you what the Australian worker wants: the Australian worker wants to know they can get a job, that they can get a better job, that they can have attractive career prospects and that their wages will go up over time. That is what they will get under the coalition. Under Labor and under Bill Shorten's socialist agenda, we will have less investment, lower growth, fewer jobs and lower wages. His tax grab—this $165 billion tax grab, imposing additional taxes on the economy—will lead to less investment, lower growth, fewer jobs and lower wages.
Under the coalition, last year, in 2017, there were more than 400,000 new jobs, as Senator Cash explained to the Senate earlier. That compared to about 89,000 new jobs in the last year of the Labor government. In fact, full-time jobs under Labor were going backwards. Under the coalition, workers will always be better off— (Time expired)
Michaelia and Mathias equals wage stagnation!
Order on my left! Senator Cameron, order! Senator Ketter, a final supplementary question?
Isn't it clear that, when it comes to working- and middle-class Australians, the Turnbull government is the government of tax hikes, not tax cuts?
When it comes to low- and middle-income Australians, when it comes to hardworking Australian families, the Turnbull government is the government that stands for opportunity and for helping families to get ahead. We want families across Australia to have the opportunity to have a job and to get a better paid job.
As I said before, these opportunities don't grow on trees; they are provided by successful profitable businesses. Nine out of 10 working Australians work for a private sector business. That is why we're working to help them become more successful and more profitable. Everything that Labor does makes it harder for business to be successful, which means fewer jobs and lower wages; everything that we do is designed to make it easier for business to be successful, which means more jobs and higher wages.
It's not working!
Senator Collins said, 'It's not working.' There were more than 400,00 additional jobs. We stand for more jobs and higher wages over time. Wages are already increasing above inflation— (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Farrell today relating to the distribution of GST revenue.
Twice this week this Leader of the Government in the Senate has been unwilling to rule out any changes to the GST distribution to Tasmania and to South Australia. I'll come back to that fact, because he's been given two opportunities over this week and he has failed to do so, but I want to go back to the beginning. I want to go back to the summer holidays, a time for beaches, barbecues—and, do you know what else? Burying, until after the elections in South Australia and Tasmania, the government's plans to slash hundreds of millions of dollars from state budgets. When did the government decide that the Productivity Commission magically needed more time to finalise its report on GST funding? On 3 January! And how much longer does the PC need to finalise this report? Until after the South Australian and Tasmanian elections! Oh, my goodness me! Knock me over with a feather! What a surprise! What a coincidence!
What is the backdrop to this? People might have forgotten that the backdrop to this was Prime Minister Turnbull talking about re-casting the GST, I think, in the context of the WA election—that's right—and positive comments made by Treasurer Morrison about changes to the GST. This isn't some esoteric argument because, earlier this week, we put to the government what the cuts, a change to the GST would mean to Tasmanians and to South Australians. It isn't an esoteric budget formula discussion; it's a discussion about nurses and teachers and police officers and infrastructure. It is a discussion about what happens to services and to real people. Let's remember: these cuts would be equivalent to South Australia cutting 5,340 teachers, over 4,000 frontline police, nearly 5,000 nurses, nearly 38,000 radiotherapy treatments, or 86 train carriages, just to name a few. These are real services to South Australians. A number of Labor Tasmanian senators have also asked questions about the cuts to Tasmania.
In the context of that, what have we had from the government? Twice this week, as I've said, Senator Cormann has refused to rule out changes to the GST. He keeps using weasel words: there's no proposal, there's no plan. Twice he's been asked to rule out any changes to the GST distribution to South Australia and Tasmania, and he refuses to. Meanwhile, Senator Birmingham says in the paper he'll fight any plan to change the GST. So which is it? Is it that there's no plan, or is there a plan Senator Birmingham's fighting? Maybe this is some weird Liberal example of shadow-boxing—you know: you fight a plan that doesn't really exist.
I can say this: there is only one party that will stand up for South Australia and Tasmania on the GST, and that's the Labor Party. Can I tell you why in South Australia the South Australian electorate can never trust Steven Marshall when it comes to standing up to Canberra? It is because he's Pyne's patsy. He's Christopher Pyne's patsy, and everyone in South Australia knows it. He owes his job to the very impressive number crunching Mr Pyne has engaged in and the influence of Mr Pyne in the South Australian Liberal Party, and so you never hear Steve say boo. He's Pyne's patsy. He'll be Pyne's patsy when it comes to the GST and he'll be Pyne's patsy on everything else, and that's why South Australians haven't flocked to him. That's the reason he's seen as a weak Liberal leader: he is controlled up here by Christopher Pyne, and everyone in South Australia knows it.
The reality is it takes more than a couple of headlines to show that the South Australian Liberal Party are actually prepared to stand up to their Western Australian and federal colleagues. We know a history of them rolling over, of them going quiet, of them not doing the right thing. It wasn't the South Australian Liberal Party who got the submarines back; let's remember that. It was the campaign run by the Labor Party and the Labor government in South Australia. The Liberals like to be lions in Adelaide, but they're cowards in Canberra. That's the reality, and I think every South Australian knows it.
I don't know who's following me after this. I hope it's Senator Birmingham, and I invite him to rule out the GST changes. I invite him to do what his leader wouldn't and rule out any changes to the GST for South Australia. If you don't, everyone will you know you're a coward. (Time expired)
You know Jay Weatherill is in trouble in South Australia when Senator Penny Wong comes in here and the best she's got is to throw around abuse and lies in her argument. That's the best South Australian Labor has to offer after 16 long years of driving the proud state of South Australia into the dust.
Frankly, South Australians rightly are fed up with a state Labor government that has overseen the slow and steady decline of the state. They're fed up with the many long months the state has suffered having the highest unemployment in the country. They're fed up with the circumstances of being in the state that has seen the lowest rate of employment growth across the country. They're fed up with the jokes that come from interstate because the state can't manage to keep the lights on. They're fed up with the fact that investment into the state dries up because people lack confidence after 16 years of Labor. They're fed up, of course, with the scandals that have beset Jay Weatherill's Labor government.
Jay Weatherill is a good factional ally of Senator Wong. No wonder she's here passionately standing up for him. But, of course, he's the Premier who has overseen the disgraceful circumstance of abuse of people in the care of the state—children in the care of the state, elderly citizens in the care of the state—and who has seen a train wreck of a disaster across the TAFE system in South Australia. It has been one disaster after another.
What I find incredible is that Senator Wong wants to come in here and talk about South Australia's GST funding. Jay Weatherill and his state government have been rolling in enormous revenue growth under the GST. It's up to some $6.3 billion flowing into South Australia. It's grown enormously—far ahead of all of their budget projections—and yet what has happened in that time? According to the Productivity Commission's assessment of state spending, investment in South Australian schools has gone backwards.
During that time, what else has happened? The state government has cut services out of South Australia's hospitals. We know that all of this GST largess that the Weatherill government has been receiving hasn't been spent on South Australian schools because funding's been cut. It hasn't been spent on South Australian hospitals because services have been cut. So where the hell has the money gone, Premier Weatherill? You've had 16 years of record revenues, and all we've seen is an endless decline in services. And what, of course, is the answer that we get from Senator Wong and the Labor Party? All we get is abuse of the member for Sturt, abuse of Mr Marshall, abuse of me and abuse of anybody that Senator Wong can think of because she has no defence of Jay. Senator Wong can't come in here and defend his school funding cuts or cuts to hospital services. She can't come in here and defend the disgrace that is the Oakden scandal—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Oh, here we go—bring it on, Senator Wong!
Senator Birmingham, resume your seat. Senator Wong.
I know he's getting very emotional, but I'd like to point out that I actually said that Christopher Pyne—
Is this a point of order?
was 'a very impressive numbers manager'. That's why you have Xenophon—because Marshall is his patsy!
Senator Wong, that's not a point of order. Resume your comments, please, Senator Birmingham.
There you see again the desperation of Senator Wong as I'm highlighting the litany of failures that have beset South Australia under her mate's government—Jay Weatherill's government—like the Oakden aged-care scandal. Of course, there have been multiple child abuse scandals. As I've said before, there has been the TAFE training scandal lately. We've seen all of these problems bank up one after another after another after another. South Australian voters aren't going to be fooled by a few Labor Party questions during question time in the Senate or by a five-minute rant from Senator Wong into thinking, 'Actually, Jay Weatherill is doing okay,' because there was no defence of Jay in anything that Senator Wong actually said.
If Senator Wong wants to engage in a discussion about the South Australian election, let's have a discussion about the South Australian election. Let's do it on state terms. Let's talk about the state government's performance, because that's what voters are judging. Voters will be judging the performance of the state government and the alternative that's on offer. The alternative that's on offer is offering clear policies to reduce costs for South Australian households through a reduction in the emergency services levy, to encourage investment in South Australia through a cut to the payroll tax and to deliver policies to get the state moving again after 16 long years of Labor failure. (Time expired)
It's obvious that Senator Birmingham has been caught out because what a performance! He is certainly never going to be a match for Senator Wong—not at all. If you want to talk about the real impacts of this government, you have had ample opportunity. Senator Wong challenged you, Senator Birmingham, to rule out any change to the GST, to rule out any cut to Tasmania or South Australia—but, no. Once again, along with Senator Cormann, you have failed to do it.
You did raise a very important issue: the Oakden scandal. It's very opportune for you to raise that, Senator Birmingham. You want to look at your own Department of Health and Ageing before you go pointing the finger at anyone else. You certainly should look at the accreditation agency and its failure to support and protect those most vulnerable South Australians, so be careful. Senator Duniam will come up and talk about the facts. The fact is, Senator Birmingham, that it was your government's department, your agency, that failed in Oakden.
Let's not be distracted from the real issues that are going to be affected by any cut of the GST to Tasmania and South Australia. We have a health system and a hospital system in my home state of Tasmania in crisis. It doesn't matter how many times that the Liberal senators come into this place and talk about previous Labor governments. It is this minister—the state Minister for Health, the Liberal minister, the Liberal government—and the Liberal Premier, who Senator Duniam used to work for, who were on the government benches when older Tasmanians were left on the floor in accident and emergency. Older Tasmanians have been left to wait for more than 48 hours for emergency surgery. One particular man was bleeding. It was a real emergency.
Senators come here from Tasmania and say: 'Well, you know, we haven't said there's going to be a cut. The Productivity Commission report, gee, golly, gosh,' as Senator Wong said, on 3 January—all of a sudden they need more time. Well, they have already highlighted that $168 million will be cut from Tasmania. Senator Duniam and the Liberal team: you need to say more than what you've been saying in Tasmania. You actually have to prove it. You have to actually stand up for Tasmanians. You have to actually put pressure on your government not to cut any funding. Why aren't you getting your colleagues, your ministerial colleagues, to actually rule out any cut to the GST? It is very simple. You keep saying that we're running a scare campaign. The reality is you can end any campaign by getting your Prime Minister, your Treasurer or your Minister for Finance to say there will be no cut.
Tasmanians don't believe you because they know that this Prime Minister has walked away from Tasmania. The Prime Minister has visited Tasmania fewer than five times since the last federal election. The reality is that all this huff and puff and talking about facts is all about trying to save a very weak Premier of Tasmania, a Premier who is only ever known as the 'good news Premier'. The reality is that, when it comes to health, hospitals and education and the lack of funding for home care packages for older Tasmanians, you have failed. The Tasmanian community understands that very well.
Health is a major issue at this coming state election. Minister Ferguson has a big red 'F' for 'failure'. If you're not prepared to rule out the GST once and for all—no cuts to South Australia or Tasmania—then the people of Tasmania will vote accordingly. They know that when it comes to health, education and looking after the welfare of all Tasmanians the only party that has a policy, a solution and a vision to restore the good health of Tasmanians and the health system is the Labor Party. So I am waiting with bated breath to hear once again those facts that Senator Duniam will roll out and roll out and roll out. The reality is we can't trust this government. (Time expired)
It is always a pleasure to follow my good friend and colleague Senator Polley, who fills the air with more mistruths than I can count, honestly. I give her points for trying.
What this is reminiscent of is something from 2016. You know what it was? 'Mediscare'—the ridiculous lie that was told to Australian voters right across Australia, particularly in Tasmania. Three members of the Labor Party—now in the federal caucus here—won their seats on a lie. They were trying to tell people we were going to privatise Medicare. This is the kind of form of this group of people, the Australian Labor Party, the Labor Senate team, this dynamic group of people from Tasmania that they send up here every year; that's what they do. They run these scare campaigns and try and fool poor vulnerable Tasmanians into believing their rubbish.
Senator Polley has been asking me to reel off facts. Here's a fact: Senator Polley couldn't defend Ms White, the opposition leader in Tasmania, once. She didn't talk up her credentials once. She stood there talking about the Premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman—an excellent Premier, I might add. I will come to those facts that Senator Polley is going to miss out on again as she leaves the chamber again, runs from this debate, to talk about the frontline services that we have restored in Tasmania.
A point of order, Senator Wong?
I realise Senator Duniam is in his first term. As a matter of courtesy, we recognise that senators on both sides often have other engagements and so we ought not to make comment about people leaving the chamber in a debate.
Thank you. Senator Duniam, please continue.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. Hopefully, Senator Polley will take note of the things that I have to say.
It is just like the case was with South Australia: 16 long years of Labor, where services have been cut and people on the ground are noticing how they're waiting longer to get into hospitals and how school standards are slipping, just like they were in Tasmania up to the year 2014. In Tasmania since 2014—in the last four years—we have restored the number of nurses.
Bec White, the opposition leader in Tasmania, says she wants to restore funding: $500 million. I don't know where it's coming from; she hasn't told Tasmanians where that money's coming from but it's what she cut. Her government, a government that she was part of, sat around the cabinet table between the years 2010 to 2014 and presided over a decision to cut health funding in Tasmania by $500 million. They cut over 250 nurses. Those numbers have been restored in Tasmania. We have an extra 120 hospital beds on offer in Tasmania. We have an extra 350 hospital staff on offer in Tasmania. We are seeing a massive increase in the number of elective surgeries, up from 15,000 per annum to 19,000 per annum. This is proof that we are addressing the things that Senator Polley, and Senator Wong, in her contribution, highlighted—that these things translate into frontline services.
But one point that Senator Cormann touched on in his answers is the salient point about unanimous consent by all the states, territories and the Commonwealth with regard to any of the changes that are being talked about around here in this scare campaign that's being run by Labor senators back in Tasmania, and, I gather, also in South Australia. There is this inconvenient fact that everyone has to agree to whatever happens down the track. I suspect that there are some concerns on the part of Labor in South Australia that Mr Weatherill will agree to something that's bad for South Australia. Hence, all the concern on the part of federal representatives from that state.
But it's clear: Senator Polley said in her question that we need to have people in the states standing up to Canberra. Well, as I said before, Ms White has proven that she can't stand up for our state. She presided over these massive cuts to frontline services. She's responsible for the suffering of many people, because she sat around that cabinet table in Tasmania and she agreed to these cuts, to the hundreds and hundreds of frontline service jobs that went and that have been restored under the Liberal government. This is the same individual in Tasmania who couldn't conduct a simple interview with radio show host Brian Carlton in Launceston without text messages from her staff. As a result, that radio show host has banned telephones from the studio. How can Tasmanians trust an individual like that, who can't run an interview, who presided over these massive cuts and who definitely won't be standing up for the best interests of the state that I represent proudly? The choice is clear: Will Hodgman has it; Bec White doesn't.
Today we've been having a discussion about the carve-up of the GST and how this government plans to approach that. There are some things that are agreed. The first thing agreed is that this is an issue referred by the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, to the Productivity Commission. The second thing that isn't disputed by anyone in this chamber is that when the Productivity Commission tabled its interim report, one of its recommendations was a change to the way we deal with this question, which would see in just one year South Australia lose $557 million and Tasmania lose $168 million relative to their current positions. That can't be disputed, because that's in black and white and it's in the report.
But what is under dispute now, of course, is what that means and what the government intends to do about it. And, waking up in the new year and realising that the Liberal Party had to fight elections in South Australia and Tasmania, its leadership has decided to try and make this go away, to kick this off into the long grass and to assert that there's nothing going on here. In today's paper we saw Mr Pyne dismissing it as just a government report:
"The Productivity Commission writes reports, the Government makes policy. There is no policy to change the GST mix," Mr Pyne said.
Senator Birmingham:
… right now there's no proposal for change and nothing for people to fight over.
That's actually not what the Treasurer said. It's very different to what Mr Morrison said. What Mr Morrison said was:
… the Commission's draft report—
this is the one that recommends a $557 million cut from the South Australian budget—
… demonstrated the system is broken and needs a real fix.
Those are the words of the Treasurer. Those are the words of the person responsible for the economic policies of this government.
So who's telling the truth? Is it Mr Pyne or Senator Birmingham, cowering as they face the voters of South Australia? Or is it the person responsible for delivering the coalition's economic policy? As someone who's enthusiastic about the wellbeing of the citizens of South Australia and Tasmania, I'd like to think that it's Mr Pyne. After all, he has only recently crowed that he is part of the winners circle. Mr Pyne is very confident that he's in the driving seat. But I actually fear that the person who's right on this question is Mr Morrison, and I have to say, judging from the reaction of other Liberal MPs, from other people in the coalition party room, they seem inclined to believe that in these circumstances it's Mr Morrison who's telling the truth. What did Mr Marshall, the South Australian opposition leader, say? He said they would:
… oppose any change to the GST carve-up which would leave SA worse off.
What does Ms Flint, the member for Boothby, say? She's out there saying:
… she would make sure there was a "fair deal for SA".
"As a proud South Australian I will be fighting to protect the state’s interests."
She seems to think there's some sort of problem, something to fight about. What does Tony Pasin say? He says that he would expect:
Any attempt to undermine this principle will be met with a fierce fight from me and … every other South Australian in Federal Parliament.
It sounds like he thinks there's a fight on. It sounds like he thinks there's a problem. These are all members of the coalition party room who seem to think there is a big issue. In this chamber, newly arrived in the Liberal Party room, Senator Gichuhi says:
She said if such a change was pursued there would need to be measures to "cushion" SA against a possible impact.
She's worried about it. Mr Ramsey, the member for Grey, is worried about it. Senator Fawcett's worried about it. They're all quoted in The Advertiser, deeply worried about the proposal by the Treasurer to change the arrangements and leave South Australians worse off.
The shameful thing is that they are not strong enough to bring on this fight, to resolve this fight prior to South Australians' going to the polls. This is a weak party in South Australia. Indeed, I will add in passing that it's the very weakness of the South Australian Liberal Party—
Senator Fawcett on a point of order.
A point of order: there's been a misrepresentation in that I was not quoted on that. I was quoted as saying—
That's a debating point.
that South Australia has mismanaged the GST funds that it has.
Senator Fawcett, please resume your seat. That's a debating point.
This is a very weak party in South Australia, and there's no greater example of the weakness of the Liberals in South Australia than the success of the Nick Xenophon Team. His success is a direct result of the South Australian Liberals' failure to provide any effective opposition to what I will say is a very, very good Labor government. They are incapable of resolving this before the election. The best they can do is kick it off into the long grass. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
The questions that I put to the minister went right to the heart of what on earth is going on inside the management of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
We know that in 2012, when this plan was signed off by all of the states involved, it was agreed that in order to put our river on a sustainable footing—to ensure that we had enough water to keep the river alive and ensure that we had a river that all users and future generations could rely on—we had to do something drastic to change business as usual. That meant putting more money on the table to buy water to return to the river, to ensure we had enough water to give the river a fighting chance.
Fast-forward five years and we've seen over $6 billion spent out of a fund of close to $13 billion, yet environmental flows are lower than previously. There is no excuse for the amount of money that has been spent through this process, yet we are not seeing the environmental returns. Earlier this week, we know, the Murray-Darling Basin Declaration was released by a number of eminent expert scientists and economists around Australia, who called for urgent action in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They have called out what they see as sheer mismanagement, corruption and waste of taxpayers' dollars. The money being spent to return water to the river is just not delivering what was promised.
The questions I put to the minister were simply dismissed out of hand. There was very little substance coming back from the minister. I'm not sure whether he isn't across his brief or whether he just doesn't care. The truth is that billions and billions of Australian taxpayers' dollars have been spent on water that's meant to be returned to the environment. The water is not there, but the money's gone. Where has it gone? It's gone into the pockets of big, greedy corporate irrigators upstream. That's where it's gone. They've had their hands out asking the taxpayer to fund their on-farm operations, to feather their big irrigation nests. Meanwhile, smaller players—the small family farms and the smaller irrigators—have very little to share, and, of course, the environment and the river are suffering.
Those big corporate interests are running the show. We know they've asked the federal government to amend the plan, saying: 'We want more water. We want more money and more water.' We have The Nationals running the show over in the coalition, saying, 'Sure, have as much as you want.' The big corporate irrigators are ripping off taxpayers and the environment. The Greens are not going to stand for it. We're not going to stand here and let that happen. We will fight every day to make sure taxpayers get their money's worth and the environment gets the water that it needs.
I tell you what: there are no jobs on a dead river. Coming from South Australia and living at the bottom end of the system, we know only too well what happens when the Murray-Darling Basin is suffering, when there's not enough water in the river. Ten years ago, when I was first elected to this place, when the Lower Lakes were a salt pan, when the salinity levels were so—
A government senator interjecting—
There are interjections from some National senator over here who, of course, is protecting the interests of big corporate irrigators at the expense of smaller farmers and downstream communities. The Nationals are running a protection racket for the big corporate irrigators and big corporate cotton growers while the river dies and the rest of the community suffers. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I give notice of my intention on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motions Nos. 5 and 6 standing in my name for 28 March 2018 proposing the disallowance of the Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 3/04—Seat and Seat Anchorages) 2017 and the Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 34/03—Child Restraint Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchor Fittings) 2017.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Brown for 8 February for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That general business order of the day no. 63, Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding Bill) 2017, be considered on Monday, 12 February 2018 at the time for private senators' bills.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007and other legislation, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 passed through the Lower House on the 14th of August 2017 and was introduced into the Senate the following day.
Amendments to this Bill were proposed by me and by Senators Bernardi, Gichuhi and Leyonhjelm, but on the 18th of October 2017 the Bill was removed from the Notice Paper, a consequence of a little used manoeuvre initiated by the Greens and supported by Labor.
These two parties wanted to deny a Senate debate on the rules which govern access Australian citizenship but the issue is too important in these unsettled times.
I want a debate on this Bill and consequently have amended the original Bill and re-introduced it as a Private Senator's bill.
Australians want a conversation about the interrelated issues of immigration rate, population size and citizenship. They are deeply concerned about social cohesion, because for many years we have been home to the highest per capita immigration program in the world, taking more than 200,000 migrants annually from over 250 countries.
I have been talking about the impact of immigration on social cohesion since I gave my maiden speech in 1996 and said "we are in danger of being swamped by Asians".
This statement has often been used as evidence of hostility towards Asians and Asian immigration but this has never been my view. Rather it was an assessment that the level of immigration was too high and that we needed to take migrants from a wider range of countries.
I did no more than mirror the views in surveys like the one done by the AGB McNair poll done on the 19th of June 1996.
In 2016 I was elected as a Queensland Senator and said "we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own".
These are the facts. This is not stereotyping. It is not racism.
Half the people in Australia are worried about immigration from Islamic countries. We know that from recent surveys done by independent research firms.
The Essential Research survey done between 27 July and 1 August 2016 asked "what is the main reason you support a ban on Muslim immigration? Forty-one per cent said they don't integrate into our society, 27% said they were a terrorist threat, 22% said they don't share our values, 4% said Australia is a Christian country, 4% said none of the reasons mentioned so far and 2% said they did not know.
The reasons given by Australians for supporting a ban on immigration from Islamic countries tell the political class that we need laws to ensure applicants for citizenship will integrate, and share our values because evidently Australians in the real world are finding that not to be the case.
Australians know I am a very good listener and this Bill represents the views of the majority of Australians.
The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing Act) 2007 introduced the requirement of a four year residency with one year on a permanent visa and a sixty per cent pass rate on a 20 multiple choice question test, but these requirements are now inadequate.
Every poll I have looked at for twenty years says speaking English is very important for migrants. Not one poll has said speaking English is unimportant because without English in this country you cannot integrate into the broader society.
Given our experience we need to make sure applicants for citizenship have already proven themselves before they are granted citizenship.
The Bill asks that applicants for citizenship demonstrate their suitability for citizenship by obeying our laws, respecting our culture and assimilating into broader society.
The Bill is not about access to welfare benefits, because permanent visa holders can access all the same welfare benefits as citizens, but it is about providing evidence that applicants for citizenship have already integrated into Australian society.
The consequence of low entry requirements for citizenship still haunts Australia, in the form of pockets of organised crime and ethnic enclaves.
If this Bill had been law we could have avoided the social problems in south-west Sydney, Melbourne and other parts of Australia.
Many of the decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are out of step with the expectation of most Australians and this Bill goes a small way to addressing these types of decisions.
It is far too common that we are unable to deport criminals and those who work against Australia's interests because they have the protection of certain kinds of visas or recent citizenship.
The commitments sought from applicants for citizenship in this Bill are very reasonable when compared with those sought by other countries, but I know from the positions taken by the Australian Greens and Labor that they believe the increased residency period and the increased level of proficiency in English proposed will discriminate against some people and in particular refugees.
I would say to them that they need to take off their rose-coloured glasses and look at the problems and how they can be addressed.
Additionally I would say Australia is one of the most generous countries in the world, in terms of accepting genuine refugees. Once they arrive in Australia we provide lifetime financial support and the provision of 500 hours of free English lessons.
Refugees on permanent visas can stay in Australia indefinitely and would only face deportation under extraordinary circumstances.
Labor and the Greens have said that the standard of English expected in this Bill is just too high. I would say citizenship carries responsibilities and that those responsibilities cannot be fulfilled by ticking the box to get 12 questions right out of 20.
In the Netherlands applicants sit a four hour test and must demonstrate they can read, write, speak and understand Dutch. Additionally they need to have knowledge which permits them to understand what they need to do as citizens.
As I have said before citizenship is one way we can promote social cohesion amongst peoples from very different backgrounds.
In the period 2010 to 2011 a government study found 168,700 migrants arrived here speaking 174 languages other than English. How can we create social cohesion if we do not speak a common language?
Migrants from these 250 countries know very little about Australia's political system, our values and our way of life.
In Australia citizenship is a legal relationship between the individual and the State. It can be acquired by birth, by descent and by the granting of citizenship, but this is not the case elsewhere in the world.
In the Middle East from where we have drawn hundreds of thousands of migrants, citizenship is a matter of religious affiliation and family relationship.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE), like Australia, has high rates of immigration and is resource rich, but here the similarities end. One hundred percent of Australian citizens have access to the welfare state but in the UAE few do and most don't.
This is because only the 13% of UAE citizens whose name is written in their fathers' Family Book can access free health care, subsidised housing, free education and other entitlements.
Why is this the case? Under the rules governing citizenship in the UAE only citizens with an Emirati father can enjoy full citizenship but they still need their name to be written in their fathers' Family Book.
Eighty-seven percent of UAE citizens acquired that citizenship by demonstrating fluency in Arabic, providing evidence of a job and meeting residency requirements of up to 20 years. These citizens have a passport, a work right and the right to remain in the UAE but no access to the welfare state.
The UAE is not alone in demanding lengthy residency periods and mastery of the language. These requirements are also demanded in Denmark, Germany, South Africa and Spain where 8-10 year residency periods are mandatory. I could name many more countries.
In any case I don't see the need to rush the passage from permanent visa holder to citizen. I see benefits in extending the time which is the reason I want applicants to spend 8 years in Australia before applying for citizenship.
When you come from another country like the UAE, where the language and the ways of that country are very different from our own, it takes time to learn about how our country works. It takes time to prove you are worthy of citizenship.
Australian citizens need to work, but the nature of work has changed a great deal.
In 1960, 63% of Australian jobs were in the service sector but today it's 84%. This growth in service sector jobs and the increasing importance of English in world trade is driving the increasing need for better standards of English by naturalised citizens.
The argument that you don't need English to be a productive citizen does not wash with me because English is critical to getting a job and integrating into our society. Study after study supports that claim.
Points based skilled migrants are required to have a competent level of English just to make an application for a visa and 95% of them have jobs within six months of arrival.
We can contrast that outcome with the poor level of participation in the labour force for refugees where English proficiency plays no role in the selection.
It is common ground that humanitarian migrants suffer very low levels of employment. English proficiency is not the only factor in low participation in the labour force but it is an important one.
The benefits of Australian citizenship come with responsibilities including defending our country in time of need and voting in Federal and State elections where the future of Australia is decided.
One Nation represents people who are patriotic. They love this country and they want to keep it safe, secure and stable for the next generation.
In Australia, gender equality is the foundation of our democracy. I don't want to see citizenship given to people who don't understand or don't agree with our law, our values, or our way of life.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator O'Neill, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that:
(i) Liberal Governments across the country are causing inequality to increase in Australia by failing to deal with record low wage growth,
(ii) this has meant that the standard of living of workers and their families has been seriously eroded,
(iii) the capacity of hardworking men and women to protect and improve wages and working conditions is now diminished, and
(iv) the failure of the system has left unions, such as the NSW Rail, Tram and Bus Union, limited in their capacity to fight for their members and protect community safety, decent wages and fair working conditions; and
(b) calls on the Liberal Party of Australia to prioritise the wages and job security of hardworking Australians.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Due to the strong economic framework provided by this coalition government, over 400,000 jobs were created in 2017—a record for a calendar year. Three-quarters of these jobs were full-time. The Reserve Bank of Australia governor recently stated the improved labour market will lead to higher wages growth and the MYEFO forecast wage growth to pick up to 2.75 per cent to the June quarter in 2019. This government does not believe that giving unions more power to cripple public services through an unrestricted ability to strike, as Labor proposes, will help any Australian into a job or increase wages.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senators Smith and Griff, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 27 January 2018 was International Holocaust Remembrance Day which remembers the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators;
(b) notes the remarks of former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, who remarked the day is one on which "we must reassert our commitment to human rights ... and go beyond remembrance, and make sure that new generations know this history. We must apply the lessons of the Holocaust to today's world. And we must do our utmost so that all peoples may enjoy protection and rights for which the United Nations stands";
(c) acknowledges the importance of International Holocaust Remembrance Day in honouring the memory of all Holocaust victims and encouraging the development of education programs about the history of the Holocaust and the stories of its victims in order to protect against future acts of genocide;
(d) acknowledges the 27 000 Holocaust survivors who migrated to Australia after the Second World War to seek new beginnings; and
(e) acknowledges the ongoing efforts of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance worldwide, and welcomes Australia's recent acceptance by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance as a liaison country.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) access to appropriate pain and symptom management and being surrounded by family are most important to people who are dying,
(ii) palliative care is not just about pain and symptom management, it is about providing meaningful social, spiritual and emotional support for families and patients,
(iii) for many Australians, their end-of-life journey will likely be punctuated with avoidable, or unwanted admissions to hospital with the confusion, loss of dignity and loss of control that comes with it,
(iv) Australians need to be more engaged in conversations regarding their end-of-life care wishes, and
(v) palliative care is not just about dying, it is about living as well as you can for as long as you can;
(b) notes that Palliative Care Australia estimates that while 70 per cent of Australians wish to die at home, only around 14 per cent do so;
(c) acknowledges that the Productivity Commission's draft report into human services, released in June 2017, argued that:
(i) there are just 213 palliative medical specialists across Australia, equating to one specialist for every 704 deaths each year,
(ii) more community-based palliative care services are needed to enable more people who wish to die at home to do so, and
(iii) end-of-life care in residential aged care needs to be better resourced and delivered by skilled staff;
(d) further notes Palliative Care Australia's call for a national palliative care commissioner who would examine existing palliative care services and programs nationally, in order to assess their efficiency and effectiveness in supporting terminally ill individuals and their families to live as well as possible, right to the end of life;
(e) calls on all senators to have an end-of-life conversation with their loved ones; and
(f) calls on the Government to make palliative care a health priority and appoint a national palliative care commissioner.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Internet access is now an essential service and has been declared as such in several countries, including Canada, Spain, and Finland,
(ii) regulation of telecommunication services, including fixed-line, mobile and broadband services, must treat telecommunications as an essential service,
(iii) the 2016-17 annual report of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman reported 158 016 complaints, representing a 41 per cent increase in complaints, and
(iv) the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman received approximately double the number of complaints received by Ombudsman offices covering other essential services, including energy, water and financial services; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) bring forward the intended Review of the Telecommunications Consumer Safeguards Framework (Safeguards Review), including review of the industry self-regulatory arrangements set out in Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997,
(ii) closely monitor the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code reviews process and direct the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to make an industry standard to drive better customer service and industry practice if the process fails to deliver effectively, and
(iii) ensure that the direction to the ACMA to implement new broadband consumer protections, as announced by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) on 21 December 2017, is enacted swiftly.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government recognise that Australians depend on broadband in their everyday lives, which is precisely why we are rolling out the NBN as quickly as possible. Under this government, we've gone from fewer than 300,000 premises able to correct to the NBN to more than six million. Over 99 per cent of Australians have mobile coverage, and we are rolling out more than 870 towers, under our Mobile Black Spot Program, to address more than 4,000 publicly nominated black spots. This government is already delivering. We have already committed to reviewing consumer safeguards and will do so. We have already directed the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make new standards to improve the customer experience on the NBN, and work is already underway to make this a reality.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(1) The Senate notes that:
(a) the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Assessment Committee (SDLAAC) plays an important role in assessing and advising the Basin Officials Committee (BOC) on proposed measures which may provide an opportunity to adjust Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL);
(b) the SDLAAC also advises the BOC on constraint measures which remove or ease constraints on the capacity to deliver environmental water;
(c) in June 2017, the BOC endorsed a package of 36 measures to be included for modelling assessment of SDL adjustment contribution; and
(d) in order to make a considered decision on any changes to the SDL, the Senate requires access to the assessments of the 36 adjustment mechanism projects.
(2) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 3pm on 15 February 2018, all assessments of the 36 adjustment mechanism projects completed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), including all individual proposal assessment information given to SDLAAC or BOC by the MDBA to inform their decision to support or not support an SDL adjustment or constraints proposal.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1)That the Senate notes—
(a) the claims by academic Mr Clive Hamilton, author of the unpublished book, Silent Invasion, that he is experiencing difficulty proceeding with publishing his book critical of foreign influence in our institutions, including this Parliament;
(b) in particular, his publisher's concern about being subject to significant court action financed by or at the behest of a foreign nation; and
(c) the report in The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on 5 February 2018, that members of federal Parliament's national security committee, namely the members for Canning and Holt, have expressed support for using parliamentary privilege to enable the publication of the book.
(2) That in the interests of free speech and Australian sovereignty, the Senate calls upon the Government to render such assistance to Mr Hamilton as to enable his claims to be considered or published.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government supports the freedom of authors and publishers to publish works, including on controversial matters. Media reports on 6 February 2018 in multiple outlets indicate that Hardie Grant books has acquired world rights to Mr Hamilton's book and has set a publication date of 2 March 2018. Accordingly, it does not appear that Mr Hamilton requires any further assistance in relation to this matter. It would also be inappropriate and set an unwanted precedent for the government to direct an independent parliamentary committee, which is responsible for its inquiries and for accepting and releasing submissions.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in a recent survey of voters, conducted by the Australian Population Research Institute, it was found that 74 per cent of respondents believed Australia does not need to increase its population, and
(ii) a Galaxy research poll, conducted by Mr Dick Smith in September 2017, indicated that 83 per cent of respondents believed major parties should have a population policy, and 82 per cent agreed population growth was an issue on which politicians needed to act; and
(b) calls upon the Government to commit to a plebiscite, held in conjunction with the next federal election, asking voters to indicate their preferred stance on Australia adopting a more sustainable population target.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will not be supporting this motion. The government's marriage equality postal survey was a waste of time and money. We don't need another one based on a thought bubble from Senator Hanson. Is the senator suggesting we need to cap population or have a policy on how many kids families can have? Labor sees this for what it is: another swipe from Senator Hanson at migrants. Labor are proud that Australia is a nation built on immigration, and we have welcomed 7.5 million immigrants since World War II, who have helped build Australia into the strong, vibrant and multicultural society it is today.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with concern:
(i) recent revelations about Senator Molan's personal views, particularly his support of racist material through social media,
(ii) allegations that Senator Molan, as Chief of Operations for Coalition Forces in Iraq, oversaw the deprivation of food, water and humanitarian supplies to civilians during the second coalition assault on the city of Fallujah, and
(iii) the failure of successive Australian Governments to initiate any inquiry into how and why the Howard Government decided to go to war in Iraq, and Australia's actions in that war;
(b) further notes that such an inquiry has long been supported by eminent Australians, including a former Prime Minister, a former Secretary of the Department of Defence, and a former Chief of the Australian Defence Force; and
(c) calls on all parties to support a long overdue inquiry into Australia's involvement in the Iraq war.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion is an unwarranted attack on a distinguished military leader, for which the Greens should be ashamed. Australian Defence Force personnel conduct themselves to the highest standards, in accordance with strict rules of engagement, designed to protect our forces and minimise civil injury, and act in accordance with domestic and international law. The Iraqi and coalition offensive to liberate Fallujah, in late 2004, was a tough, complex and hard-fought battle. The circumstances in which Australia committed forces to the coalition effort in Iraq are a matter of public record and have been subject to parliamentary inquiry. The Australian Defence Force operates under strict rules of engagement in accordance with domestic and international law.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The opposition does not support an inquiry into Australia's involvement in the Iraq War. We've been clear about our position on the material shared by Senator Molan on social media. There is no excuse for propagating racist, bigoted posts from white supremacist organisation Britain First or any other organisation. The Prime Minister must break his silence, show some leadership and call on Senator Molan to apologise for his actions. However, the actions by the Australian Greens in seeking to make baseless allegations against the senator through a notice of motion are nothing more than a self-serving stunt. The opposition will not be any party to a motion that trivialises serious issues in order for the Greens to score cheap political points.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
If Senator McGrath were so sure of his position, then why on earth would he not support an inquiry to confirm that position? If he were so sure of his position that the invasion of Iraq was not a political, strategic and humanitarian catastrophe—if he were absolutely sure that the invasion of Iraq was warranted—then he would be happy to support an inquiry so that we can learn the lessons of the past.
Just today we learnt that Senator Molan has posted more offensive material. This time it appears that he shared an offensive joke, and I'm not going to repeat it. How many more times do we need to be aware of this behaviour before he is rebuked by the Prime Minister? As I said yesterday, we saw the UK Prime Minister rebuke President Trump for sharing similarly offensive material. We need an inquiry into the Iraq War. It is now time for the coalition and the Labor Party to stop blocking it so that we can learn the lessons of the past.
Question negatived.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 691 standing in my name, relating to shark conservation.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the 12th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species was held in Manila in October 2017,
(ii) a consensus agreement among 50 nations from Asia, Africa and Europe decided to add blue sharks, dusky whalers and white-spotted wedgefish to a list of species requiring additional protection, and
(iii) the Government subsequently submitted reservations to the listing of the three species, which applies exemptions of the agreed protections within Australian waters;
(b) notes, with concern, the public statements of the Minister for the Environment (Mr Frydenberg) on matters relating to lethal measures to mitigate the risk of human encounters with protected Great White Sharks, including urging state governments to adopt nets and drum lines which have not proven to make beaches safe for humans, but are indiscriminate killers of protected marine life such as dolphins, whales, other endangered shark species and turtles; and
(c) calls upon the Government to continue the pre-Coalition Government tradition of Australia being an international leader in shark conservation and meet international expectations and standards in the protection of the Great White Shark, blue shark, dusky whalers and white-spotted wedgefish in Australian waters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia continues to seek a responsible balance between shark conservation, beach protection measures and sustainable fisheries management. Without a reservation, the consequences of the listing will be to impose more onerous obligations on Australia than for other parties to the convention. This is due to provisions in Australia's domestic legislation. The combination of the reservation, sound domestic fisheries management measures and ongoing strong participation in the convention's memorandum of understanding on the conservation of migratory sharks brings Australia's response into line with that of all other convention parties.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I was happy to amend the motion to take out the words the environment minister had been belligerent about in his statements about protection of great white sharks and encouraging the Western Australian government to put in place lethal mitigation methods such as drum lines and shark nets. But I understand that Labor also wanted me to amend the motion to take out the words in clause (b) on the sixth and seventh lines, which has 'drum lines which have not proven to make beaches safe for humans', and put in something different. I want to be very clear here today that the evidence in front of the Senate committee and a very exhaustive inquiry made it clear that drum lines and shark nets do not make beaches safe. Technically, they may make them safer, if they kill a single shark. That's a mathematical thing. But they do not make beaches safe. It is 100 per cent accurate. And if you support drum lines and lethal nets then you support the killing—indiscriminate slaughter—of marine life. So forget the bloody protocols. If you support those things you support killing sharks. (Time expired)
The question is that motion No. 691 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I seek leave to amend the motion standing in my name and in the names of Senators Urquhart and Brown for today relating to reproductive health services.
Leave granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Urquhart and Brown, move the motion as amended in the terms circulated in the chamber:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) access to affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including abortion and contraception, is part of every woman's right to control her own body,
(ii) recently, the primary provider of surgical abortions in Tasmania closed their clinic, and the Tasmanian Liberal Government ruled out providing this essential service within the Tasmanian public health with women forced to travel interstate for treatment,
(iii) in January, Prime Minister Turnbull refused to comment on whether Tasmanian public hospitals should provide this essential health service, instead leaving the matter for the Tasmanian Liberal Government, and
(iv) across Australia, inconsistent laws and service provision means access to abortion can be extremely difficult, and women face high out-of-pocket costs; in particular, women in remote, rural and regional areas are often forced to travel long distances to urban clinics; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) show leadership and work with states and territories to remove all barriers to Australians accessing abortion services, including decriminalisation of abortion in New South Wales and Queensland, and provision of surgical abortion services in public hospitals across the country, and
(ii) where state and territory health systems fail to provide abortion services, step in to ensure funding and provision of essential reproductive health services for all Australians.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Access to termination services is a state and territory responsibility, and the Australian government has no constitutional powers in this area.
The question is that motion No. 688, as amended, be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Carr, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the NSW government has awarded $4 billion in contracts to build the Intercity and Waratah train fleets overseas, and
(ii) this decision by the NSW government will impact local rail manufacturers and supply chain businesses, and puts up to 15 000 existing jobs across Australia at risk; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth and all states to cooperate and strengthen rail manufacturing in Australia by:
(i) establishing a National Rail Manufacturing Industry Plan to maximise the benefits from the $46 billion investment expected over the next decade,
(ii) working together to achieve a long-term, sustainable and efficient rail industry that will provide job security for local rail manufacturers,
(iii) harmonising safety standards that would maximise manufacturing efficiencies, and
(iv) working with the rail industry to develop Rail Industry Skills Centres at local TAFE and colleges, and ensuring the use of local apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets for at least ten per cent of the total labour hours.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government is committed to Australia's rail manufacturing industry. In the 2017-18 budget, the government renewed its commitment to invest in rail infrastructure with $20 billion committed over the next decade. The government's major rail initiatives include $8.4 billion in equity funding for inland rail, $10 billion over 10 years for a national rail program to improve urban and regional rail networks, $792 million to progress Metronet projects in Western Australia, $20 million for up to three business cases for faster rail connections between major capital cities and regional centres, and a number of significant measures included in the June 2017 $1.6 billion Victorian rail announcement.
The question is that motion no. 687 be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf ofSenators Bilyk, Wong, Singh, Gallacher, Polley, Farrell and Brown, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on 3 January 2018, the Treasurer (Mr Morrison) announced that the final report of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the economic impact of horizontal fiscal equalisation would be delayed to 15 May 2018;
(b) notes that the Productivity Commission's draft report revealed that under changes to the distribution of GST revenue Tasmania stands to lose $168 million in the first year alone, and South Australia stands to lose $557 million in the first year alone;
(c) notes that the Turnbull Government's decision means the final report will not be delivered until after the South Australian and Tasmanian state elections, and after the next Federal budget is handed down;
(d) condemns the Turnbull Government for hiding its plans from the people of Australia; and
(e) calls on the Turnbull Government to make its planned changes to the distribution of the GST clear before South Australians and Tasmanians vote in upcoming state elections.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion is a stunt by the Labor Party and factually wrong. The Productivity Commission is an independent body that requested that the horizontal fiscal equalisation report deadline be extended to 15 May to allow sufficient time for them to complete the report. The figures quoted are cameos from a draft report relating to last year's GST relativities, and it is incorrect to suggest these numbers reflect the impact of potential changes to the equalisation system. The government is not hiding any plans to change the GST. The government will respond to the Productivity Commission's final report after it's completed in May.
The question is that motion no. 690 be agreed to.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today six proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following matter has been received from Senator Bernardi. Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The passage of business tax cuts in the United States of America and the pressing need for the Australian Parliament to provide significant tax relief for Australian businesses.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.
I present this matter of public importance with the concurrence of my colleagues, Senator Leyonhjelm and Senator Anning. Whilst we haven't come to an appropriate name for our taxpayer focused alliance, we are committed to getting better value for money for the taxpayers in this country and we are committed to finding a more efficient and effective way of governing.
Today we're focused on the need for Australia to reduce taxes on business. We have to leave aside for a moment the impost of red, green, and other tape on business and, indeed, the payroll tax and other taxes on jobs. All of this is endemic across the country. But we need to talk specifically about the income tax burden. On this front I have to commend the government for maintaining a commitment to lowering business taxes. It falls to the Australian Conservatives to keep making the case that gives the coalition the backbone and strength to secure truly conservative achievements.
Tax relief for business is a topic I know is attractive to almost a majority in the Senate—almost. Unfortunately, we've missed it by this much. That's the wedge of the Greens and others in the Senate that reject fiscal prudence. Again, as I said on the cashless debit card this morning, we always crash into what I might now describe as the budgetary Berlin Wall: the left-wing barricade in this place that is the Nick Xenophon Team, the Greens and the Labor Party. The real Berlin Wall, as you well know, this week has actually been down longer than it was ever up, but a budgetary Berlin Wall remains here in the Senate, and the bricks are coloured orange, green and red.
Why reduce business taxes? It makes sense for reasons I'm going to outline shortly, but the Trump administration in the United States have done two things. They've led the way with their business tax cuts. They've also put pressure on Australia to follow suit. If we do not follow suit, businesses will prefer to set up in more tax-friendly countries where the markets are bigger and it's more efficient and effective for them to do so. Businesses will go to where they're made to feel welcome. Reduced business taxes lead to increased after-tax profit, which encourages more capital investment. It allows business to increase, update and improve the capital available to their workers. This in turn leads to greater productivity per worker, greater economic outcomes and higher real wages. Indeed, Labor may claim the mythical cigar-smoking bosses will pocket the increases, but with labour mobility workers in a healthy economy will seek better-paying employment if the bosses and not they are enjoying the rewards of their labours.
Lower business tax rates can fundamentally address some of the key ills that have been afflicting our workers, households, cost of living and economy more generally over the past decade and particularly since the end of the mining boom around 2012. These are the very kinds of economic reforms that the Hawke-Keating and Howard government years successfully instituted for all Australians.
Cutting business taxes is the kind of economic reform and mindset this country urgently needs to return to the path of prosperity. We need to return to it today. The budgetary Berlin Wall of Nick Xenophon, Labor and the Greens cannot sustain business tax rates that are now at entirely uncompetitive levels by world standards whilst also pushing instead for artificial hikes in minimum and other wage rates to try and address sluggish wage growth. The evidence of this is apparent to anyone who has run a small business, who has employed people, who understands the economy and how it functions. Unfortunately, there are too few in this place, too few on the crossbenches and too few on the left side of politics who want to confront the reality of what we need to do.
This type of discredited central planning or command-and-control structure never works in the medium or long run. It simply destroys jobs rather than having the tide lift all boats. Of course, the current opposition aspires to hold government, and their ideological followers from the Nick Xenophon Team and the Greens simply don't seem to care about the medium or long term. The political Left want the short-term sugar hit of populism in order to reclaim power, to centralise more power within their ranks and to move across to the government benches by winning the next election.
Higher business tax rates are a disincentive for our young people trying to get jobs, they're a disincentive for businesses to invest in this country and to continue to reinvest in this country, and a they're a disincentive for mums trying to re-enter the workforce. Wage increases can only be sustained if they are driven or underpinned by similar productivity improvement. Otherwise we all suffer—particularly our young people seeking a chance to get their first job or to move into a better-paying job.
The reality is this: the more businesses we have competing for labour in the market, the more people we will have employed and the more attractive it will be for an employer to pay them higher wages in order to meet the competitive demands. I know that, as an employer in a small business, you do whatever you can to keep your good employees, whether it's giving them additional benefits, preferential hours or additional wages. But you can only do that if you are making a fair profit. Too many businesses in this country seem to be working for the benefit of the government—working for the benefit of a range of government departments and pen pushers—rather than to the benefit of the economy overall. We need to change that. Cutting company tax and business taxes will be a massive step in the right direction.
I find myself yet again following Senator Bernardi in a debate about economic matters. I thank him for bringing this very important economic matter to the attention of the chamber today because he's absolutely right. The case for company tax cuts in Australia was already very, very strong, and no-one on this side of the chamber needed any further convincing, but, as Senator Bernardi has pointed out, the success of the Trump administration in legislating massive tax cuts for companies and individuals has brought that into even further and even starker vision for Australians.
We already knew that Australia's corporate tax rate was high and uncompetitive. We already knew that it was way out of step with the OECD and becoming increasingly out of step every single year. As major OECD nations like the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and others continued to cut and reduce their corporate income tax, Australia's became increasingly out of step, high and uncompetitive. From the most recent statistics, even before taking into account the US tax cuts, Australia was in the top handful of high corporate tax rates in the OECD—only Germany, Belgium, France and the United States were higher. As we know, very shortly the United States will be lower. There are many countries below Australia in that OECD list of rankings that you wouldn't normally think of as having lower and more-competitive corporate tax rates than Australia, particularly Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Denmark, and the Netherlands and Luxembourg, but it's true that Australia's corporate income tax rate is even higher than those.
But we already knew all of that, and we knew that courtesy of people like Ken Henry, who in his review of the taxation system for the Rudd government identified the corporate tax rate as being very high and uncompetitive almost a decade ago—and it has only become more so in the years since. He also identified that, of all the taxes that the Australian government levies, the company tax is one of the least efficient—that is, the deadweight loss, the loss to the Australian economy, of raising $1 of revenue through the corporate income tax makes it one of the least efficient ones compared to others. It causes more displacement, it causes more ill effects and it reduces economic activity more than dollars raised from other forms of taxation.
So there was already a pretty compelling case from Ken Henry, there was already a pretty compelling case from where we stand in the OECD and there was even a very articulate case made in recent years by none other than Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen, when they were in government, for the need to cut the corporate tax rate in Australia. We already knew from historical records that when nations, including Australia, cut the corporate tax rate it stimulated economic activity, increased investment, increased jobs and flowed through to higher wages. We know from economic research that all of this is true. But now we have a very powerful real-world example from a very relevant neighbour and friend of Australia, the United States. It has put this issue into very, very stark focus.
The United States has legislated massive corporate and personal income tax cuts. This is relevant to Australia not only because the United States is the world's largest economy, and that's obviously an important factor, and not only because the United States is a competitor for global capital—and a competitive corporate tax rate is an important means by which we will compete with countries like the United States for global capital—but also because the United States is by far and away the largest foreign investor in Australia. Why is that important? Why is it important that the largest foreign investor in Australia has just cut its corporate tax rate? An investor in the United States who invests in countries like the United States and Australia, in contemplating where they're going to make their big investment next year, deciding between an equivalent investment in Australia and the United States, will now know that they can get a relatively better return on that investment in the United States than they would have received in Australia, because the corporate tax rate in the United States is now going to be considerably lower, at 21 per cent, than Australia's rate of 30 per cent for large companies. So that investor will think, 'Previously, I might have invested in Australia.' The corporate tax rate in Australia used to be 30 per cent compared to the United States' 35 per cent, where they would get, relatively speaking, a better return on an equal investment because of Australia's lower company tax rate. But now that same investor making that same choice will be much more sympathetic and more likely to invest at home in the United States, given there is a nine per cent advantage in the corporate tax rate in the United States. So by far and away our largest source of foreign investment in this country—those investors—will now be contemplating whether or not Australia remains a good destination for investment.
If we were to lose that investment or even if that investment was to decline slightly, that would have profound implications for Australians. We want foreign investment and we particularly want foreign investment from likeminded, close nations like the United States. It is a good thing when they come here and invest. When they come here and invest, they do so to create jobs, to create employment, and they provide products and services to Australian citizens, and we benefit from that. So it is vitally important that Australia has a company tax rate which is at least in the ballpark of the United States' company tax rate—let alone being way, way above it, as it will now be if we don't take action, if this parliament doesn't legislate the government's enterprise tax plan.
We had a powerful example of the kinds of benefits that the United States will reap from the company tax cuts that the Trump administration has legislated. Wouldn't it be nice if Australians could enjoy these benefits too? I will read from a selected list of the companies that have announced the actions they are going to take after the Trump administration decided to reduce its corporate tax rate. One is American Airlines. After the Trump administration's tax reform bill passed Congress, they announced that a $1,000 bonus would be paid to all of their employees in the first quarter of 2018. AT&T, a major telecommunications company, announced a $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 US employees, and is also going to invest an additional billion dollars in the United States in the 2018 year. The Bank of America Corporation announced a one-time bonus of $1,000 for US employees earning up to $150,000 a year, which amounts to about 145,000 employees. Boeing has announced $300 million in charitable giving, workplace development and workplace facility enhancements. There are many others.
Comcast, another major telecommunications company, announced a $1,000 bonus for more than 100,000 workers. They said they would hire thousands more employees and invest over $50 billion in infrastructure. Disney, the entertainment company, announced a one-time $1,000 cash bonus for its more than 125,000 employees. ExxonMobil announced $50 billion in new US investments over the next five years. FedEx announced over $200 million in pay rises, about two-thirds of which will go to hourly team members—they are, the employees who are on the lowest wages—and they'll contribute $1.5 billion to the company's pension plan, which will ultimately go to its workers upon their retirement.
JP Morgan announced it would hire 4,000 new employees and open up to 400 new Chase branches, including increasing the minimum wage from $15 an hour to $18 an hour for 22,000 of their employees. Lowe's, a major department store, announced up to a $1,000 bonuses for more than 260,000 employees. They said they would expand their maternity and parental leave benefits. UPS, the distribution company, said they were going to invest $5 billion dollars in their pension plans and $7 billion dollars in a new smart logistics network. Visa announced they would hike their 401K—the equivalent of superannuation for US workers, the rate at which they match their contributions—from six per cent to 10 per cent. These are all the really tangible benefits from major US companies to their employees, to their shareholders and to Americans who will benefit from this increased investment. Wouldn't it be nice if Australia could share in these benefits too? The truth is that we could share in these benefits.
I want to share the announcement of one other company, which is Apple. Apple has announced that they are going to bring back the vast majority of their hundreds of billions of dollars of offshore cash into the United States. They estimate that they have $269 billion of cash outside the United States, and they're going to bring that back onshore. That's going to have a couple of benefits. Obviously that money can then be invested in Apple's business in the United States, in their employees, returned to their shareholders, invested in new products, in R&D, but it is also going to result in a one-time tax payment to the US government of $38 billion. So, a tax cut by the US Congress is going to result in a massive once-off payment from Apple to the US government in the form of higher tax payments. Wouldn't it be nice if Australia could share in this? The answer is we can, and all it requires is for this chamber to take action in passing the government's enterprise tax plan.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on a matter of public importance on the issue of company tax rates. One of the things I do regret in relation to this debate is that the focus on the headline company tax rate often—in fact, always—obscures the true picture of the tax burden that companies face around the world, and I will expand on that later.
I want to start off by looking at the fiscal position in Australia. We have a government that wants to go down the track of looking after the big end of town and providing tax cuts to companies in the order of $65 billion. But what is the fiscal context of that? If we look at the 2016-17 final budget outcome, we can see that, at that point, net debt had blown out by $147 billion under the government, having ballooned from $175 billion in September 2013, to $322 billion in the latest FBO figures. Gross debt at that time was at record highs, having crashed through half a trillion dollars for the first time in our history, with no peak in sight. The government's own budget papers showed that net debt would hit record highs at that point. That was the 2016-17 final budget outcome.
Last year the Parliamentary Budget Office's national fiscal outlook came out in October, and what did it say about the situation at that point? The national fiscal outlook showed that the Commonwealth net debt was continuing to rise and would be at record highs for two more years; net debt had blown out by another $19.6 billion since last year's outlook, due to higher than expected deficits; the government's projected return to surplus relied on wages growth—and we know that wages growth is at record lows—and also relied on higher personal income tax revenue—heroic assumptions there; and a projected return to surplus relied on a period of faster growth in taxes than the 2001-06 period, when we know that the mining boom was in full swing. We also saw there that, under the government's watch, taxes would rise to the highest levels since before the GFC.
Let's look at MYEFO and what the position was at that point in time. We know that, despite the minor improvements that were expected in the budget position, the budget deficit remains eight times larger than the $2.8 billion deficit in the government's first horror budget of 2014; net debt had blown out by $80 billion to $343 billion since 2014; economic growth is down on the back of families struggling to pay their bills and weaker household consumption; and the Liberals' return to surplus continues to rely on a $44 billion tax hike for middle Australia delivered in the budget from last year. So that is the fiscal position that this government is intending, many would argue, to make even worse, by virtue of a further raid on the fiscal position, by introducing the tax cuts.
Now let's look at the tax cuts in the United States, which Senator Bernardi has drawn attention to. We know that the IMF has come out and made some comments about the tax cuts there. There's an IMF report which points to the negative impact of the US tax cut package and what this would do to growth. I quote:
Due to the temporary nature of some of its provisions, the tax policy package is projected to lower growth for a few years from 2022 onwards.
This is from the IMF's World Economic Outlook for January 2018. I also note in passing that the Treasurer's own advice that he received on the $65 billion tax handout to big business showed that any benefits that would flow from that would be negligible at best and would not be felt for a very long time. So the Treasurer is ignoring the advice of his own Treasury. That IMF report that I referred to also calls for inclusive growth, which is something that Labor has been talking about for some time. All Australians need to enjoy the benefits of economic growth, not just the big end of town. Unfortunately, the government's policies on tax, wages and the social safety net make our economy less inclusive and more unequal.
I mentioned that focusing on this headline company tax rate is quite misleading. I also want to draw attention to the fact that currently, if you don't look at the headline rate and look at the average corporate tax rate, or the effective corporate tax rate, Australia looks much better, if you are looking at it from Senator Bernardi's perspective. I'm relying on Congressional Budget Office figures that were prepared on corporate tax rates in G20 countries back in 2012, so they are a little bit old, but many of the figures are quite relevant. At that point in time, the average corporate tax rate in Australia was listed at 17 per cent. There are only three countries in the G20 table that are below that level of average corporate tax rate. When you look at the effective corporate tax rate, which many commentators talk about from time to time, Australia is in the middle of the pack of the G20 countries, at about 10.4 per cent.
There are a range of factors that need to be looked at that the debate at the moment tends to obscure. We're yet to see any facts that back up the scare campaign from the coalition that, if we don't do something about corporate tax rates, capital investment will go elsewhere and multinational companies won't come to Australia and those that are here will leave. I believe that multinational companies have an extremely sophisticated approach when it comes to analysing the tax burden that they face in any of the countries in which they operate. They're not just going to look at the headline tax rate; they're going to look at the overall burden of tax which will confront them. As we can see from those figures, the real level of tax that companies are paying is quite different to the headline level.
There are a whole range of other factors that need to be taken into account when one looks at this issue of the tax burden. The differences in our health systems, for example, are quite an important factor. We know that in the US it's companies that face the burden of paying for the health system, whereas in Australia the taxpayer picks up that. That is something that is obscured in this debate. We also have a rather unique system in Australia of dividend imputation, which ensures that dividends are not taxed twice. The overall burden of tax is something that's quite sophisticated. I don't think that the public is done any favours if we are just going to focus on one aspect of the overall picture and not look at the full level of the impact of tax across the country.
If the coalition is serious about debt and deficit, they should stop looking after the big end of town. They should stop refusing to take action to stop corporate tax dodgers. They should look at negative gearing and capital gains tax. There's a growing list of supporters for Labor's policy of addressing those distortions, including the IMF, the OECD, ACOSS, CEDA, the former RBA governor Glenn Stevens, Jeff Kennett and Mike Baird. All of them understand that these are distortions which need to be addressed. They could look at trust tax policy, and they really have taken a lacklustre approach to productivity reform. Cutting penalty rates has not created jobs and it has impacted on consumer spending. Fundamentally, Labor believes it's irresponsible to spend $65 billion on the big end of town when wages growth is historically low and cost of living is weighing heavily on low- and middle-income households.
Mr Acting Deputy President, this is not my first speech. I rise to speak on today's matter of public importance and the need for the Australian parliament to provide significant and meaningful tax relief to Australian businesses.
An immediate cut to the company tax rate is essential in the interests of boosting jobs and investment and Australia's international competitiveness, and yet there is resistance. The opposition have not always been so short-sighted. Those of us who are old enough can remember the Hawke and Keating era of relatively business-friendly, responsible Labor government. However, an enthusiastic revival of the antibusiness policies and collectivist sentiments of the Whitlam era has seen Labor devolve to the harebrained business-wrecking approach previously cast aside. We have seen unnecessary opposition to reasonable policies that will result in benefits for all Australians.
Economic history remembers that in a not-so-distant past, meaningful cuts by none other than Labor themselves resulted in company tax rates tumbling from 49 per cent to 33 per cent. Australians reaped the benefits of those tax cuts, seeing, in conjunction with a number of factors, a marked increase in GDP from the late eighties. In 2010 Gillard promised to cut company tax rates, with the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan, saying:
Reducing company tax will create new jobs and grow the economy right around the country …
At the time, Mr Swan also stated that he was open to a reduction in the rates from the current 30 per cent to 25 per cent, exactly what we see being proposed today. Mr Shorten himself has previously criticised the Greens for their opposition to similar so-called big business tax cuts proposed by Labor.
Why has Labor abandoned this responsible approach? Maybe the idea of hypocrisy is lost on those opposite, because they now argue that the company tax cuts are unaffordable and that the whole concept is ridiculous. They have called it wasteful and flawed, and labelled it as trickle-down economics and a giveaway that will have negligible effect on job creation. I have to say I am deeply disappointed in the Labor Party for taking such a cynical position. The argument previously used by successive Labor governments to support tax cuts in the eighties, nineties and 2000 applies equally today. A reduction in the corporate tax rate will grow the economy, and the benefit to GDP is at least one per cent after the budget cuts are included. It will total many billions of dollars.
Outside Australia what we have seen since 2000 is a global downward trend in company tax rates which continues to widen the gap between Australia and many other countries. Yet successive governments haven't implemented any meaningful cuts. Our current rate of 30 per cent is amongst some of the highest rates around the globe. It is uncompetitive, plain and simple. It's higher than the OECD average, higher than the Asian average, higher even than the European average and, surprisingly, higher than the 'socialist union' average—excuse me—the European Union average.
What we need in this place is for those opposite to support meaningful tax relief for Australian businesses. The cut to the corporate tax rate similar to the US will see an increase in Australian competitiveness on the global stage and flow-on benefits to businesses and workers in equal measure. Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defence contractor, is earmarking for its pension program some of its exceptional expected windfall as a result of President Trump's tax cuts. The company has also come out and stated it is going to increase its commitment to initiatives like employee training, charitable contributions and education in science and math. Additionally, AT&T have reported they have some more flexibility as a result of the tax cuts. I call on the Labor opposition to close their ears to the socialist siren song of the Greens and not to allow the economy to be drawn onto the rocks of business-wrecking high taxes. Channel your inner Paul Keating and support business tax cuts.
I also rise today to speak in response to the matter of public importance submitted to the Senate by our parliamentary colleague Senator Bernardi. Senator Bernardi is correct: this is a matter of public importance, and there is a pressing need for parliament to provide significant tax relief for Australian businesses. The only thing standing in the way of parliament doing just that is the obstinacy, the obstructiveness, the recalcitrance and the political self-interest of the Labor Party.
The verdict is in: company tax cuts create opportunities for Australian businesses to invest, to grow and to employ. The Turnbull coalition government has already delivered tax cuts to 3.2 million small and medium businesses, giving them the flex to grow their businesses and create more and better-paid jobs. And the results couldn't be clearer. More than 400,000 new jobs have been created in the past year alone, and 300,000 of those are full-time. There have been 15 consecutive months of jobs growth. That's the longest consecutive run of jobs growth on record. The participation rate is at its highest in seven years and, on average, 178,000 jobs were advertised each week in January alone. That's up 6.2 per cent. That's the strongest monthly increase in eight years. So the results are irrefutable: get the policy settings right and the economic benefits will follow.
Despite an economy disrupted by the transition from a reliance on the mining boom, the laws of supply and demand still apply. Continued jobs growth will eat into capacity in the economy and put upward pressures on wages. We have already seen above-average wages growth in the fastest-growing sectors of the economy, such as health care and education. And this is what the coalition are all about: more jobs and better-paying jobs for all Australians. But you must get the policy settings right.
Whether it be through crazy, snake-oil-salesman economic thinking, political expedience that panders to the Left-Green flank of the Labor Party, the politics of envy, the politics of grievance or just plain old belligerence and an inability to concede the obvious, the Labor Party has resisted time and time again the opportunity to step up, to do the right thing by the Australian people and to demonstrate that it cares about the prosperity of future generations. But it's not too late. Labor can still support the coalition's proposed second tranche of company tax cuts and give Australians the very best chance at a thriving economy, more jobs and better-paying jobs.
I hope that the better angels of the Labor Party will win this argument, but I fear that, with Mr Shorten at the helm, there is little hope of that. As the Prime Minister so rightly noted yesterday in the other place, the reality of it is this: the Leader of the Opposition hates business. And, since it is business and not government that is ultimately the best at creating jobs, joining the dots, one could rightly infer the Leader of the Opposition hates new jobs.
Prior to January the United States had the highest corporate tax rate of any country in the OECD. However, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, slashing those corporate tax rates from 35 per cent to 21 per cent. When he did that, he showed the United States is indeed open for business. Meanwhile, however, Australia is languishing with the fourth-highest corporate tax rate in the OECD. The coalition government's enterprise tax plan will cut our corporate tax rate to 25 per cent for all businesses, making Australia more competitive with countries like the USA, like the UK and like Singapore. Without that second tranche of the enterprise tax plan, our international competitiveness will be put at risk. I note that Senator Ketter quoted the IMF World Economic Outlook, but he failed to mention that that same report identified a significant threat to Australian GDP as a result of the decreased competitiveness in the face of the US tax cuts. Treasury, however, have reported that the loss of GDP as a result of President Trump's tax cut could, in effect, be offset by the implementation of the government's enterprise tax plan.
Put simply, inertia is not an option. Our economy is under threat, but it is a threat that can be mitigated. Only the obstinacy of Labor stands in Australia's way. Even in the context of the opposition's rhetoric of inequality and fairness, this obstinacy is entirely unjustified. Recent economic research from Germany has demonstrated that not only does cutting corporate tax lead to jobs growth but those who are helped the most are those that stand to benefit the most: women, young workers and low-skilled workers. This, in turn, will help redress economic inequality, an issue about which the Labor Party purportedly cares so very deeply.
The fact is that even the opposition don't really need convincing of the benefits of company tax cuts because they already know. Professor Richard Holden, who is a go-to economist for the Labor Party, has stated the coalition enterprise tax plan is reform that 'deserves across-the-board political support when it comes before parliament again this year.' Furthermore, Professor Holden also asserted:
Cutting the Australian company tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent is not just good for business, and workers. It is also helps to redress economic inequality.
The opposition leader apes Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders with that class warfare rhetoric, asserting that the coalition's enterprise tax plan is nothing more than a gift to the top end of town. I don't want to insult Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders because, for all their radical socialist tendencies, at least they actually believe in what they say. It wasn't so long ago that Mr Shorten himself said:
Reducing the corporate tax rate … sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow on to workers in the form of higher wages—thereby improving standards of living.
Similarly, the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has also previously stated:
It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
These are the very same people who now threaten small- and medium-sized businesses, telling them that a Shorten-led Labor government would legislate to reverse the first round of company tax cuts that they supported only last year.
What has changed for these new apostles of socialism? At which point did they divest their party of the legacy of Keating and Hawke and move so far to the left that they could make Lenin blush? This is the most anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs opposition we have seen since Whitlam. The parliament knows it, economists know it, the media commentators know it, the business community know it and the Australian people know it. We expect such economic nonsense from the Greens, who dwell on the fringe, but you are a party auditioning to govern. You have abandoned your tradition, you have abandoned your principles, you have abandoned Australian workers who want more jobs and better-paid jobs and, by denying our economy every opportunity to grow and flourish, you abandoned your chances of winning the election for years and years to come.
You can man the barricades all you like. You can man the barricades. You can storm the Winter Palace with your rhetoric, your politics of envy and your economics of snake oil, but Australians know the truth: it is Labor that stands in the way of cuts that will keep Australia competitive, that will grow the economy, that will allow—
$65 billion—
I ignored you perfectly well the first time, Senator O'Neill; you don't need to repeat yourself. These tax cuts will keep Australia competitive, will grow the economy, will allow businesses to invest and employ, and will create more and better-paying jobs. The Leader of the Opposition and this marching band of incompetents and sycophants have no plan to grow the economy, they have no plan to boost wages and they have no plan to create jobs.
I'm pleased to follow Senator Hume, because we can put some facts on the table. The MPI today from Senator Bernardi urges the Australian government or the Australian people to follow in the wake of Mr Donald Trump, the President of the United States, in terms of tax cuts.
I can't imagine that Senator Bernardi really believes this, because what we've seen in the US is that a significant number of top US companies are using those tax cuts to restructure their businesses and sack workers. Let's put a truth on the table—no rhetoric, no fluff, no spin: a truth. The company Kimberley-Clark, who make the tissues and the nappies, are using their tax savings—gleefully triumphed by those opposite—to restructure their business to sack workers and cut a staggering 5,000 to 5½ thousand jobs. That's what Kimberley-Clark are doing with their tax money. They're not the only ones. Walmart is also in the business of using its tax cuts to sack workers. When Senator Bernardi put this proposition to the Senate, surely he did not mean we should emulate those US companies and start to sack Australian workers with a tax cut? But he's not here to defend himself, so I don't know. Maybe he missed this. It's been in the media for the last couple of weeks that US companies are using the tax cut to sack workers. I don't know how he missed it; certainly I didn't. Those are the facts there; that's what is happening in the US.
Today we found out that just nine per cent of top US companies are actually using those tax cuts to share with workers and customers. We are always hearing from the government that somehow trickle-down economics still works. But the trickle-down ends in the boss's pocket. That's where it ends; it trickles down to the boss's pockets. Never have we seen any trickle-down ending up benefiting workers. Never in my 20-odd years as a union official did I ever see that. Every wage increase won by the workers of United Voice was hard fought by them. In the days of enterprise bargaining, they traded off to get wage increases.
Let's have a look at what's happening here in Australia. One of the things Labor has consistently raised, over and over again, is: let's go after the companies who are not paying tax. Before we give hard-earned dollars to the big end of town, let's see which companies are not paying tax. Well, 732 companies who last year had a collective income of over $500 billion paid no tax at all in Australia. How shameful. What we see from the Turnbull government is this banging on about, 'We need to give tax cuts to big business.' Actually, what we need to do is make sure that the 732 companies who paid not one cent in tax last year in Australia start paying their fair share.
All of us in this place who are PAYE taxpayers—the same as Australian workers—are paying our fair share of tax. I don't have a problem with paying tax, because I know that it goes to our hospitals, to our schools, to Medicare and to a whole range of government services that I value. I see that it is the role of government to provide these services. But it annoys me—it beyond annoys me—when 732 companies who operate in this country, who made $500 billion last year in income, paid not one cent of tax.
I want to go back to Glencore. As I said earlier in this place, I was really shocked and very disappointed to see a senior member of the government attack workers in the gallery yesterday. All those workers did was vote against their enterprise agreement, and their company, Glencore, locked them out. They've been locked out for more than 200 days. That has set a record in Australia. Let's have a look at Glencore. They declared $18.3 billion in income—$18.3 billion—and here they are arguing with their workers, locking them out for more than 200 days. How much tax have they paid? Not one cent. So, they've locked out their workforce, they've paid not one cent in tax and yet they've earnt $18.3 billion. Yesterday a senior member of the government attacked two workers in the gallery. I'm happy to stand corrected but as yet I have not seen an apology from that man who attacked workers. What a disgrace. But we shouldn't be surprised, because that's what the Turnbull government excels at: attacking workers, attacking unions. But yesterday was a new low—they went right down to workers.
Thankfully, the ATO is after Glencore. To put more facts on the table: the 732 companies that I'm talking about paid no tax in Australia and, in the 2015-16 financial year, their collective income was more than $500 billion. That's not some made-up, left-wing jargon. That's not some airy-fairy figure plucked out of nowhere. That's in the dataset on corporate tax released by the Australian tax office. That tax evasion by companies like Glencore and Chevron is on the public record for anyone to see. But, rather than look there, the Turnbull government, who we know always looks after its mates at the big end of town, is simply saying, 'No, we'll give you a tax cut.' Well, these companies don't need a tax cut; they need to pay their fair share. If they were fair dinkum Australian-managed companies, they would pay their fair share, because Australians still believe in a fair share. I think the ATO went after Chevron for two or three years, and they owed millions of dollars. Now it seems that they've been caught out, but not before a showdown, not before the ATO had to invest millions of dollars in pursuing Chevron simply to pay what it should be paying in this country—its fair share.
People are talking about tax cuts and the Prime Minister is going on about how trickle-down economics works, when it doesn't, but we've got record low wage growth in this country that all manner of experts are worried about. It's no longer an issue just for trade unions; we've got business leaders in this country saying, 'In order to get our economy moving, we need workers to earn money.' We don't need them being locked out by Glencore, who paid no tax, or having to bargain for 12 months or more to get a one or two per cent increase. They should have a fair share put into their pockets. But companies never do that willingly. They need governments to take the lead. We need the Turnbull government to start to take the lead and talk the sort of language that companies need to hear—that is: when you're making profits, you share with the people who made the profits for you.
The managing director or CEO of a company getting millions of dollars a year in income is not the one making the money for that company; it's the workers putting in the hard yards. That's who's making the profits for those companies, and it is time those profits were shared. I don't begrudge anyone making a lot of money—good on them—as long as they're paying their fair share, as long as they're paying what they should be and not having a free ride on the backs of workers, because that is not fair. BlueScope Steel—there's another one; Sydney Airport—another one; Toll Holdings; and Transurban are all companies we hear a lot about and that most Australians would have heard about at one time or another that are not paying proper tax in this country. It is time for the government to focus on tax avoidance and getting big companies to pay their fair share. Big companies who've made $500 billion in profits need to start paying what they owe. They're the facts on the table. Never mind a tax cut for the big end of town; let's get these companies paying their fair share so that we can put it into services, and workers can start to get a fair share of it, not the one or two per cent wage increases that are being doled out—and workers should not be locked out by a company such as Glencore that's paid not a cent of tax in this country.
Today, we are talking about the need to cut company tax rates. For years the Liberal Democrats have talked about the new jobs and higher wages that would come from cutting the company tax rate. But we have to change this message. It is no longer so much about winning new or higher-paying jobs. It's about keeping our current, poorly paid jobs. The message of hope is less relevant. Unfortunately, it is fear for our jobs that needs to motivate us now.
In 2003, the worldwide average corporate tax rate was 30 per cent. That's our current rate. In 2016, measured across 202 tax jurisdictions, the corporate tax rate was 23 per cent. It's now 19 per cent in the UK and 17 per cent in Singapore. It's 12.5 per cent in Ireland. And now the United States has cut its company tax rate, and the federal rate there is now 21 per cent. Even socialist countries like France are cutting their company tax rates to below ours. As a result, the great majority of the countries of the world charge companies far less than Australia does for the privilege of investing in their countries. So the great majority of the world's investment is passing Australia by, along with the jobs and wage growth that come with it. And it will only get worse while our company tax rate remains stuck at 30 per cent, notwithstanding the minor concessions for small businesses.
We need to live in the real world. Lamenting, ignoring or quibbling about the lower company tax rates in the rest of the world won't make them rise back up to Australia's rate, and it won't make foreigners invest here instead of elsewhere. Our current jobs, as unsatisfying as they may be, are at risk if we stand still. Not for me or others who suckle on the taxpayers' teat, but for the six in seven employees who work in the private sector in Australia. Those who refuse to acknowledge the connection between attracting company investment and the employment and wages offered by companies are either stupid or devious. Either way, they are traitors to the everyday Australians we are supposed to represent.
I am always suspicious of simple solutions to complex problems, and the proposal put forward by Senator Bernardi is a doozy. Does the senator realise a lower tax rate equals lower franking credits and less money in the hands of self-funded retirees and those saving for the future? One Nation has already supported tax rate cuts for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million, but I draw the line at that. What we need are incentives for businesses to invest in Australia and tax rate cuts are not the answer.
Today we have been asked to agree with the suggestion that failure to lower business income tax rates like the United States will mean we are going to be uncompetitive. By that, I mean that existing businesses will leave Australia for countries with lower tax rates or that other businesses will not come to Australia. Foreign owned multinationals don't consider corporate income tax rates in their investment decisions, because they don't expect to pay any tax in Australia. It is just too easy to contrive a paper loss or a non-taxable income. Lowering business income tax rates will not make Australia an attractive destination for investment unless government delivers globally competitive electricity and gas prices. We also need labour reform. We have a $600 billion debt and no prospect of paying it back because this government and the previous Labor government have no appetite to collect tax from foreign owned multinationals which often pay more in political donations than they do in corporate income tax. The truth is Australia could compete for investment if only the two major political parties had the real interests of Australian citizens at heart. Instead, the prefer to spend their time and energy on silly games and pursuing private agendas.
It is an attractive idea to think someone else has already solved Australia's economic problem, but let us be clear: the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law by President Trump only started on 1 January this year. It will take time to see what it achieves. It does introduce a 21 per cent tax rate at a federal level, but many states in America also have corporate income tax law, so, really, the business tax rate in the United States will be about 26 per cent. A tax rate comparison between countries is ridiculous when the new system in America restricts deductions but in Australia deductions are unlimited. The new company tax system in America provides huge incentives in terms of capital write-offs to encourage things to be made in America.
Central to the reform of the United States tax code is departure from the international tax system, which taxes companies on their worldwide income. The American Congress wants to end the shell game multinationals play so well where profits are moved from one country to another and end up in a tax haven. It is alright screaming for a reduction in Australian company tax, but make it in relation to other countries around the world what they're paying—understand their tax system. I know for certain that most of the senators in this place have no understanding of the tax system and how it works. I am learning. I don't know everything but I have an adviser who has worked in the system for 20 years and I've learnt a lot.
Order! The time for this debate has now expired.
by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Singapore, Myanmar and Indonesia, which took place from 2 July to 13 July 2017. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
It's a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on the report of the parliamentary delegation which visited Singapore, Myanmar and Indonesia in July of last year, of which I was the deputy leader. I want to begin by thanking my fellow delegation members: the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP, Mr Ken O'Dowd MP and Ms Cathy O'Toole MP. Although we hold a range of political views we worked well together as a delegation, and I'm pleased we were able to present this unanimous report to the parliament. I now know their middle names, because at some of the places we went to in Indonesia they put up our full names, including our middle names, so I do feel I know them reasonably well. I would also like to thank Dr Cameron Hill, who performed the duties of the secretariat of the mission, all of the Australian missions and the staff at those missions and the attaches. They did everything they could to make the delegation a success and as smooth-running as possible.
We visited these three ASEAN states at a crucial time in the evolution of Australian foreign policy. In each one of them we saw in real time, as it were, the issues which were addressed or, in some cases, perhaps, not addressed in the government's new foreign policy white paper. These issues include the rise of China's economic, political and strategic power in our region; the role of the United States as an ally and guarantor of the region's security; the increasing challenges to the ideals of democracy, human rights and secularism, which Australia has promoted in the region; the threats of terrorism and of ethnic and religious conflict; the challenge of refugees and population movement; and the escalating threat of climate change to food security and economic progress.
The dominant narrative in Australia about our ASEAN nations over the past few decades has been of their rapid rise to prosperity and, perhaps not in all cases but in some, to democracy. There is a lot of truth to this narrative, as we can see when we compare, for example, the Indonesia of today with the Indonesia of the Suharto era, but the picture is far from uniform. Of ASEAN's 10 members, only Indonesia and the Philippines are fully-functioning multiparty democracies. Vietnam and Laos are communist party regimes, Thailand is under military rule and Brunei is an absolute monarchy. Malaysia and Singapore have each been ruled by a single party since before independence. Cambodia is succumbing to authoritarian rule, and Myanmar is making a difficult transition from decades of military despotism. Even in Indonesia and the Philippines we can see disturbing trends: increasing authoritarianism, and ethnic and religious conflict. The three countries we visited vividly illustrated the great political and economic diversity of the ASEAN countries.
In the limited time I have left—and I would urge senators to read the report or perhaps to participate in the upcoming ASEAN delegation—I want to go to some of the matters we saw. We started in Singapore. We were greeted with great depth and a really great openness by both the Singaporean departments we visited, the foreign affairs department and the defence department, and also by the politicians we met. We did run into the Prime Minister in a lift and then later had a meeting with him. We ran into him in the lift as he was running into the chamber, so we all had some sympathy for him!
We also went to the Kranji War Memorial and paid respects to those who were buried there. We laid crosses made by school children from our respective states at some of the graves, and it was an incredibly moving experience.
I want to go to some of the other programs we saw. In Indonesia we went not only to Jakarta but also to Surabaya and Malang. In those cities we saw the difference we are making through a water sanitation program. While we were there we visited a household where the husband and father of that household had died recently because the water system there is so polluted. In fact, many people who still wash or wash clothing in that water system die from disease. Obviously, this is a country not that far away from us. This is a great program that the Australian government is rolling out— (Time expired)
The time allocated for this discussion has now expired.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the documents.
These documents all relate to Commonwealth Ombudsman's reports regarding people who are in immigration detention for prolonged periods of time.
These are immigration issues covered very effectively for the Greens by my colleagues Senator McKim and, prior to that, Senator Hanson-Young. I speak about them partly because it has become a bit of a theme for me in the few months since I've been back here: it is impossible to ignore how ongoing and unresolved some problems are. The process of these assessments by the Commonwealth Ombudsman under section 486O of the Migration Act relates to people who are in prolonged detention. My memory might be wrong on this, but I'm fairly sure that these occurred when I was in this chamber over 10 years ago. It was certainly put in place during the era of the Howard government in recognition that there were failings in our immigration detention system because people were in detention for very long periods of time without adequate oversight of their situation and without proper monitoring of whether adequate steps were being taken to resolve their situation. It might not have directly stemmed from it, but it certainly gives me cause to remember the period when former Senator Amanda Vanstone was the immigration minister and we had what was a major scandal when an Australian citizen, Vivian Solon, was not only detained but then deported to the Philippines, and Cornelia Rau, another Australian resident—certainly with a valid visa—was detained for a long period of time in immigration detention completely unlawfully. It was sufficiently bad, in conjunction with other things, that the then minister recognised that there was a cultural problem. Those were the words she used. There was a 'cultural problem' in the immigration department. Clearly it was no fault of the government at the time, so it seemed, but a problem of culture in the department. They put in place various mechanisms to try to ensure it didn't happen again.
Clearly what we're seeing is a deliberate application of a culture from the very top down, from the minister via a horrendous new, militarised, antimigration regime under Home Affairs and flowing on from the so-called border protection department. It is now the megadepartment of Home Affairs, complete with nice black militaristic-looking uniforms, deliberately imposing a culture of locking people up for as long as possible and causing as much harm for as long as possible. We had a debate in this chamber yesterday about the inhumanity—the clear, undeniable evidence of massive suffering inflicted on people offshore because of the detention regime. There are plenty of independent reports to look at that and to detail that. It is still important to remember that there are still people in Australia right now who are suffering and being made to suffer as part of what I would say is a much deeper cultural problem and one that has been knowingly created. It's no surprise we are now seeing people being wrongfully detained yet again as part of that. There is a complete lack of care about that fact.
To look at a couple of the cases here—and they're summarised in the Ombudsman's report—the first couple of people have been in detention for seven years. We're getting to the stage where, for nearly all of the 10-year period when I was not in this chamber, people have been locked up in immigration detention and still are. The Ombudsman, of course, doesn't have power to release people. It has a power to make recommendations. Of course, the other documents tabled as part of this give the minister's or the government's response to the Ombudsman's assessment and recommendation. I think I'm correct, in flipping through them all, that there are about 18 in one report and another nine in the other, so that is close to 30 people. Not all of them have been detained for seven years or more, but all of them have been for a very long time. There are 100 assessments referring to 135 people who've been in immigration detention for over two years. For all of them, I think—certainly the vast majority—the Ombudsman's recommendation has been ignored.
This is the situation we're facing now in our country. This is a deliberate state of affairs not just being perpetrated but continuing to be prosecuted with enthusiasm by the current minister. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017 together with documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the first report of 2018—Human rights scrutiny report.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into the Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 1 of 2018.
The role of the committee is to examine bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
The committee's report provides parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation rather than an assessment of the broader policy involved. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports and may have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation.
I note that several bills examined in the current report are scheduled for debate this week, including in relation to:
Several bills scheduled for debate this week did not raise any human rights concerns, and others have been examined in more detail to assess compatibility. Of the new bills in the current report, 13 were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to 10 bills and legislative instruments.
The report also contains the committee's concluded examination of eight bills and instruments. Following correspondence with the relevant minister, the committee has concluded that six of these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with international human rights law. This illustrates the constructive process of liaising with legislation proponents to identify relevant information in order to assist the committee in its assessment of legislation.
Finally, I note that Dr Jacqueline Mowbray of the University of Sydney recently commenced as the committee's new external legal adviser. The legal adviser provides the committee with independent advice on the compatibility of legislation with international human rights law. I would like to welcome Dr Mowbray to the position and look forward to her contribution. I would also like to thank the committee's former legal adviser, Dr Aruna Sathanapally, for her services to the committee and to wish her well for the future.
I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 1 of 2018 to the Senate.
On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 1 of 2018.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 1 of 2018 of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I present two government responses to committee reports as listed at item 16 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.
The document s read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Senate Committee on Education and Employment report Inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia
Introduction
On 24 November 2014, the Senate referred the inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia to the Education and Employment References Committee (the Committee). The terms of reference are at Appendix A.
The Committee released its report Getting our money's worth: the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia on 15 October 2015. The report made 16 recommendations. Coalition Senators submitted a minority report in support of all but the first recommendation of the majority report, with no additional recommendations proposed. Australian Greens Senators provided additional comments and made four additional recommendations. The Australian Government welcomes the report by the Committee.
The Australian Government has considered the Committee's report and provides a response to each of the 16 recommendations. The Australian Government also responds to the four additional recommendations from the Australian Greens Senators.
The Committee has made a number of recommendations around the VET FEE-HELP scheme and safeguarding the quality of training more broadly.
The Australian Government shares the Committee's concerns around maintaining high quality standards of training provision in VET. The Australian Government continues to be committed to ensuring quality training and assessment outcomes for students. A range of initiatives to promote quality have been at the centre of the Australian Government's VET reform agenda.
These initiatives include the introduction of new Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) in 2015, an enhanced regulatory approach for the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), a focus on assessment reform, a mechanism to address emerging issues through the introduction of a regulation for making Quality Standards, the review of training packages, the reform of the training package development process and the establishment of the Australian Industry and Skills Committee.
The Australian Government is aware of unscrupulous behaviour by some VET FEE-HELP providers. This is why we have announced the new VET Student Loans scheme which replaced VET FEE-HELP from 1 January 2017. VET Student Loans give students, providers and the VET sector the opportunity to better meet industry needs and employment outcomes while ensuring quality providers are delivering the program.
The new scheme will stop providers from charging students exorbitant fees which are then underwritten by the taxpayer. Australia's economic growth and business productivity will be enhanced by a strong VET system, and the VET Student Loans scheme is an important part of this.
The Committee, through the Australian Greens Senators' additional recommendations, has raised issues in relation to the impact of contestability in the training market, including the degree to which training subsidies are contestable between public and private RTOs, and whether additional financial support is provided to public providers (TAFE institutes).
The Australian Government supports contestability as it promotes choice for students and encourages efficiency, responsiveness, and innovation among RTOs. Contestability is a core part of the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD) and the previous National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (Skills Reform NP). In the NASWD, all governments committed to:
encourage responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open and competitive training market;
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and communities; 1
Importantly, this support for TAFE institutes to adapt to a more competitive training market should not be in conflict with, or at the expense of, contestability and provision of choice for consumers.
The Australian Government budgeted $1.85 billion to state and territory governments for their training systems in 2017-18, of which $1.5 billion will be through the National Skills and Workforce Development Specific Purpose Payment; and $350 million through the Skilling Australians Fund (the Fund) .
The Fund will provide a new agreement with states and territories, superseding the funding and framework of the previous National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. The new partnership focuses on strong accountability, transparency and clear outcomes for skills training and the broader economy. With matched funding from the states and territories, the Fund will support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees, pre- and higher-level apprentices over the next four years. Spending from the Fund will be prioritised towards projects brought forward from states and territory governments which support apprenticeships and traineeships in: occupations in demand, industries and sectors of future growth, trade apprenticeships, rural and regional Australia, and industries facing structural adjustment.
States and territories manage the delivery of VET within their jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction decides how much funding to provide to their training system and how it should be spent. Training subsidy arrangements are also determined by state governments and include the degree to which training subsidies are contestable between public and private RTOs. Therefore, some aspects of the additional recommendations are outside the scope of the Australian Government's responsibilities.
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that, given the evidence of rampant abuse, accelerating costs, and doubling of bad debt the government launches an immediate review into the operation and regulation of VET FEE-HELP.
The Australian Government supports this recommendation
The Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Act 2015 passed through Parliament in December 2015 and enacted new measures from 1 January 2016 to further strengthen the scheme. These changes controlled growth ahead of the replacement of VET FEE-HELP with VET Student Loans, which better reflects the nature and practice of the VET sector.
VET Student Loans offer greater protections for students and provides access to quality higher level VET qualifications that address industry needs and create better opportunities for employment. VET Student Loans is underpinned by strong legislation and robust compliance measures.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that this review considers the most effective way to control costs of courses for students under VET FEE-HELP by either instituting a lower and separate loan limit or a cap on student loan amounts.
The Australian Government supports this recommendation
VET Student Loans were introduced on 1 January 2017, replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. VET Student Loans offer greater protections for students and provide access to quality higher level VET qualifications that address industry needs and create better opportunities for employment.
Loan caps apply to all eligible courses under VET Student Loans. There are three bands of loan caps of $5000, $10,000 and $15,000, which will apply irrespective of whether the course is being delivered face-to-face, online, or via mixed delivery modes. A separate loan cap of $75,000 for the aviation training package applies. The application of loan caps on all eligible courses is designed protect students from rapidly rising course costs, and puts downward pressure on fees.
The intent of loan caps is to protect students from rapidly rising course costs while still giving students the ability to choose a course based on a number of factors such as quality of delivery, course content, location and facilities. Therefore, establishing loan caps on courses does not prevent approved VET Student Loan providers from setting tuition fees above the cap, rather it sets a ceiling on the maximum loan amount the government is willing to provide a student for a specific course.
Recommendation 3
The Committee further recommends that this review considers the most effective way to limit provider access to VET FEE-HELP so that only providers with the highest reputation for quality have unfettered access to the scheme. The Committee recommends that the government mandates minimum entry standards of year 12 completion or equivalent for access to VET FEE-HELP loans for Diploma level courses and above.
The Australian Government supports this recommendation
The Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Act 2015 introduced additional quality criteria for approval of new VET FEE-HELP providers. Only those registered training organisations (RTOs) that have a strong trading history of at least five years in offering VET courses are eligible to apply. The amendments also introduced minimum entry standards for students wishing to access VET FEE-HELP loans. From 1 January 2016, VET FEE-HELP providers were required to apply a student entry procedure for VET FEE-HELP loans.
The student entry procedure must specify that a student is academically suited to a course when the student satisfies one of the following requirements:
The VET Guidelines stipulates that Language, Literacy and Numeracy testing must be conducted with an approved assessment tool. The VET Guidelines stipulates the Core Skills Profile for Adults (CSPA) is an approved assessment tool, and providers may apply for approval of other assessment tools following independent assessment as to the tool's veracity against published criteria.
VET Student Loans were introduced on 1 January 2017, replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. VET Student Loans offer greater protections for students and provide access to quality higher level VET qualifications that address industry needs and create better opportunities for employment.
There are more stringent requirements placed on providers seeking to offer eligible courses through VET Student Loans.
A new application process applies to providers who wish to access the VET Student Loans program, regardless of whether they were a provider under VET FEE-HELP. Under the new application approval process, providers will be assessed against a range of criteria including: financial performance, strong management and governance, applicants' relationships with industry, student outcomes, and the provider's three-year track record of delivering education and training.
In recognition that TAFEs and public providers are low risk, under VET Student Loans, TAFEs, publicly owned RTOs and Australian universities (accredited as RTOs) that are
provisionally approved as VET student loans approved course providers will not be required to apply for full approval under the new program and can commence operating under VET Student Loans from 1 January 2017.
There are specific criteria students must meet to be eligible for a loan through VET Student Loans. Student entry requirements will be extended to include recognition of an Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level four qualification or above.
Recommendation 4
The Committee opposes suggestions to lower the repayment threshold to $30, 000 or $40,000. Asking lower income earners to pay for the failure of government to properly regulate the operations of VET FEE-HELP — and for the rampant and unethical misbehaviour of some private providers — fails both the practical and ethical test.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
On 15 September 2016 the Senate passed the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. Among other measures the Bill establishes a new minimum repayment threshold for HELP debts of two per cent when a person's income reaches $51,957 in the 2018-19 financial year. This new threshold will apply to all HELP debts including VET FEE-HELP, as current policy settings do not differentiate between the different loan types in terms of repayment thresholds.
VET Student Loans were introduced on 1 January 2017, replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. VET Student Loans offer greater protections for students and provide access to quality higher level VET qualifications that address industry needs and create better opportunities for employment.
Ensuring cohesion between the shared elements of HELP is critical as a number of students move between higher education and VET throughout their education experience. Therefore, the current lifetime loan limit, repayment threshold and rates and the loan fee will apply to the new VET Student Loans scheme.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that urgent and concerted efforts are made to further raise awareness of the rights of students and existing Standards relating to providers in the VET sector. This effort should focus on advocacy groups dealing with the most vulnerable members of the community, including the long-term unemployed or disadvantaged, migrants and people with disabilities.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring students are provided with accurate and accessible information about their rights as students and consumers. Transparent and accurate information about training provider services and performance enables prospective and current learners to make informed decisions regarding their training and assessment needs.
The Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (RTO Standards) make RTOs responsible for ensuring prospective students are well informed about their training. RTOs must provide students with clear information on matters including entry requirements, the mode of delivery and assessment, support services and any third party arrangements in place (Standard 5). Students must also be accurately informed about fees, funding entitlements and the terms of any loans they may incur (Standard 5). The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) can take action against a RTO when it, or any marketing agent acting on its behalf, fails to provide clear information to prospective students.
Furthermore, the RTO Standards require that RTOs ensure their training strategies enable each learner to meet the requirements for each unit of competency, including giving regard to the existing skills, knowledge and experience of the learner. Where appropriate, the RTO should make reasonable adjustments to take into consideration the individual learner's needs.
In October 2014, the Australian Government announced a commitment of $68 million over four years to support ASQA in becoming a more modern and responsive regulator. This included funding for ASQA's communication strategy which made it clear to all RTOs that they are responsible for ensuring all members of the community are properly informed. Prior to the implementation of the new RTO Standards, ASQA consulted extensively with a range of stakeholders, including students. This included hosting 31 information sessions focused on the RTO Standards in 16 cities across Australia during October and November 2014.
In early 2015, the Australian Government amended the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 to make it an offence for any person to market a VET course without clearly identifying the RTO providing the qualification. This additional obligation ensures prospective students are better informed about which RTO they are dealing with.
New legislation for VET Student Loans includes a range of measures to expand on the existing student protections by banning brokers or agents from engaging or recruiting students in relation to loans, prohibiting contact with students regarding the availability of
loans unless the student has expressly consented to contact by the particular provider and broadening the circumstances for which student loans may be re-credited.
The Government has also established a VET Student Loans Ombudsman that began on 1 July 2017, in order to strengthen student protection. The Ombudsman will:
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education and Training and the Australian Skills Quality Authority conduct a concerted and urgent blitz of all providers to ensure that they are consistently complying with the national standards, especially those relating to student recruitment. This blitz should be aimed at defending the interests of students, enforcing adherence to AQF volume of learning standards and removing non compliant RTOs as VET FEE-HELP providers.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation
The Government is committed to protecting students and supporting the integrity of the VET sector. The Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (RTO Standards) support quality in the VET system by requiring that advertising and marketing material is accurate, comprehensive information is provided to prospective students and assessment strategies meet course requirements. Providers must at all times be compliant with the RTO Standards and the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) takes appropriate regulatory action against any provider found to be non-compliant.
Since its establishment in 2011, ASQA's regulatory decisions have affected a significant number of training providers nationally. As at 30 June 2016, ASQA had issued 595 written notices of intention to cancel or suspend registration and actually made 315 decisions to cancel or suspend registration. It had also refused 187 applications to renew registration from existing RTOs.2
ASQA employs a modern, responsive, risk-based approach to regulation. This involves applying greater scrutiny to high-risk providers and prioritising the issues that pose a serious risk to safety and the integrity of the VET sector. This targeted approach also ensures high quality, low risk providers who are doing the right thing are not subject to unnecessary regulatory burden.
A sector-wide process would divert ASQA's resources away from more targeted scrutiny of high risk providers while placing unnecessary scrutiny on compliant providers. ASQA's risk analysis is based on intelligence it captures from a wide range of sources including student complaints, audit findings and employer and industry advice. ASQA uses intelligence and data analytics to evaluate information and identify those risks that present the greatest threat to quality outcomes for the VET sector. This analysis of risk includes examining trends in enrolment data and levels of government funding. Data that suggests a provider may be employing aggressive sales or student recruitment strategies would trigger closer scrutiny from ASQA.
The Australian Government has introduced tough new standards for RTOs that will enable regulators to act more swiftly when addressing quality concerns. The department will work with ASQA to reinforce increased VET Student Loans provider compliance and quality through infringements.
In 2016, the department undertook a range of VET FEE-HELP compliance actions, including an initial 28 provider audits. The audits have provided an evidence base for compliance action, including suspending the approval of seven providers for poor performance. The department is continuing its audit work in 2017, including new audits on providers not previously audited. Based on the audit findings, the department is withholding VET FEE-HELP payments from a number of providers, including Phoenix Institute of Australia and conducting investigations into the veracity of their reported enrolments.
The department is also undertaking investigations of providers to determine whether breaches of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) and the Higher Education Support (VET) Guideline 2015 have occurred, including by using powers under HESA to compel the provision of information. These investigations may also result in compliance action by the department, including infringement notices and possible civil penalty proceedings. As of 1 August 2017, five providers have paid a total of 59 infringement notices (totaling $637,200) for alleged breaches of civil penalty provisions within HESA.
For those providers with multiple serious breaches, the department has the power to revoke their VET FEE-HELP approval. Since 2015, the department has revoked the VET FEE-HELP approval of 11 providers for non-compliance with HESA, including Phoenix Institute of Australia and the Australian Institute of Professional Education (AIPE).
These efforts will continue under the new VET Student Loans program—which replaced VET FEE-HELP on 1 January 2017, with infringements being broadened and strengthened under the program. To date, four providers have paid a total of seven infringement notices (totalling $75,600) for alleged breaches of civil penalty provisions within the VET Student Loans Act 2016. The department is continuing investigations, including a rolling program of desktop audits that are expected to lead to further infringement notices being issued to providers.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the government, where there is evidence to do so, provides a brief to the DPP to launch prosecutions against providers engaged or benefiting from fraud and take steps to recover monies lost.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The department is working closely with the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), as well as undertaking its own investigations and action to deal with non-compliance with the VET FEE-HELP scheme.
The ACCC and the department have initiated joint litigation against four VET FEE-HELP providers for alleged misleading and unconscionable conduct, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law, when marketing VET FEE-HELP funded courses.
The department has joined these ACCC actions to allow it to seek to recover payments. Recovery has been sought for payments made to the providers on behalf of students enrolled as a result of alleged misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct.
The department has successfully defended a Judicial Review challenge by Phoenix Institute of Australia regarding the department's decision to defer payments in 2015. The ACCC and the department were also successful at first instance in their action against Unique International College Pty Ltd.
VET Student Loans were introduced on 1 January 2017—replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. New legislation for VET Student Loans gives the Government greater power to take action against training providers who breach requirements of the program and its associated guidelines. This includes escalating actions ranging from warnings to simplified provider suspension and revocation powers.
The legislation provides for:
Where the department has sufficient evidence of fraudulent activities, the department will seek to brief the DPP. The DPP, which operates independently of the department, will then decide whether to commence prosecution.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the Australian Skills Quality Authority be given powers to directly regulate brokers or marketing agents in the VET sector, and to protect students.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
The Australian Government is committed to protecting students' interests and ensuring all brokers and marketing agents operating in the VET sector comply with their legal obligations.
The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) currently regulates third parties operating in the VET sector under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act). Certain provisions of the NVETR Act create offences and civil penalties that apply to any person, not only registered training organisations (RTOs). For example, the legislation gives ASQA the power to take action against a person operating within the VET sector who makes a false or misleading representation relating to a VET course, which would apply to brokers or marketing agents found to be making such statements.
Since 2 April 2015, ASQA has also been able to issue infringement notices for breaches of certain civil penalty provisions under the NVETR Act. This allows ASQA to quickly resolve some clear-cut breaches of the legislation by issuing a fine to either an RTO or a third party.
Students' interests are protected in the VET sector by a range of mechanisms. All training providers, as well as third party brokers or marketing agents, must comply with the consumer law that applies in the relevant jurisdiction and the Australian Consumer Law, which is enforced jointly by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and State and Territory regulators.
The powers referred by the states which form the basis of the NVETR Act may not extend to the specific regulation of brokers or marketing conduct in the VET sector. A further referral of powers by the states to the Commonwealth may be required to allow ASQA to more comprehensively regulate brokers or marketing agents.
Powers in relation to student advocacy or protection were specifically excluded from the referral of powers by the states and territories to the Commonwealth under the NVETR Act. As such, a further referral of powers by the states and territories would be necessary to enable ASQA to take greater responsibility for protecting the rights of students.
The Australian Government will continue to review policy in this area to ensure it remains effective.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the government caps or otherwise regulates the level of brokerage fees paid for VET FEE-HELP students to maximum amount of 15 percent the amount of the loan.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
The Australian Government is deeply concerned about the unscrupulous recruitment practices of some brokers operating in the VET sector and the arrangements they have in place with registered training organisations (RTOs) which may incentivise such conduct.
The Australian Government has introduced reforms to make RTOs accountable for the behaviour of any third parties acting on their behalf, including brokers. In the new Standards for RTOs 2015 (RTO Standards), providers must have a written agreement with any third party that delivers services on their behalf, including any activities related to the recruitment of prospective students. The RTO Standards also make the RTO ultimately responsible for ensuring transparent and accurate information is provided to prospective students.
In addition, in 2015 the Australian Government made amendments to the National
Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act) that require persons marketing VET courses to clearly identify the RTO responsible for issuing the qualification. This allows the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) to take action against any RTO whose agent or broker fails to provide clear information to a prospective student about the qualification they are signing up for and any associated financial implications, such as VET FEE-HELP debts.
VET Student Loans were introduced on 1 January 2017—replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Under VET Student Loans, third party delivery of training will only be allowed in circumstances where the third party is also an approved VET Student Loan provider or accredited with the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). Providers will be prohibited from using brokers or marketing agents to interact or engage with students at enrolment or any other time throughout their training.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the government apply, in consultation with industry and quality providers, minimum hours standards to VET FEE-HELP eligible courses.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
The Australian Government considers that the quality of VET graduates is a significant issue and is seeking to ensure all national training enables students to achieve the necessary competencies to participate effectively in the workforce.
Under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, all registered training organisations (RTOs) (including VET FEE-HELP providers) must comply with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). The AQF provides guidance on the 'typical' volume of learning for each qualification type, which allows flexibility. Those developing and accrediting qualifications are responsible for exercising professional judgement to ensure courses enable students to achieve the learning outcomes for the qualification type and the discipline, and must also comply with the AQF.
There is a tension between mandated minimums for course duration and the national VET system's competency-based approach to training. What is critical is not the number of hours studied, but rather that the course provides each student with sufficient opportunity to gain the competencies of the module or qualification. Different students are at different stages in the development of their competencies and recognising the prior learning of students is an important component of the VET system. Courses may be structured for completion in a shorter period where a training organisation can clearly describe how learners have the characteristics to achieve the required rigour and depth of training in a shorter period.
The Standards for RTOs 2015 (the Standards) require providers to give regard to the existing skills, knowledge and experience of the learner, and the mode of delivery, when determining the necessary amount of training provided. If an RTO is unable to demonstrate how the amount of training provided enables the learner to achieve the required competencies, ASQA may take an appropriate regulatory response.
The Australian Government will continue to monitor the regulatory architecture relating to course duration to ensure regulatory oversight is adequate and that providers comply with the Standards.
In the coming year, the Australian Government may consider whether those RTOs in receipt of government funding should be subject to any additional obligations to ensure quality outcomes are achieved.
VET Student Loans were introduced on 1 January 2017—replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Under VET Student Loans, Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) will continue to monitor compliance with national standards and investigate quality concerns of VET Student Loans providers. This includes ensuring that all VET Student Loan providers are complying with the AQF. New legislation for VET Student Loans also gives the Government greater power to take action against training providers who breach requirements of the program and its associated guidelines.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the Australian Skills Quality Authority be given the powers to take swift and strong action against Registered Training Organisations found to be providing inadequate training to their students.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) plays a critical role in managing risk and underpinning quality outcomes in the VET sector. To enable it to effectively perform this role, ASQA has at its disposal a wide range of regulatory powers.
The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act) provides ASQA with a spectrum of administrative, civil and criminal sanctions that it can take against providers that are delivering inadequate training or are otherwise in breach of the legislation. These escalate from conditions on registration through to suspending or cancelling a provider's registration. For violations of certain provisions of the NVETR Act, ASQA can seek a civil penalty order or criminal sanctions from the courts.
Since 2 April 2015, registered training organisations that breach certain civil penalty provisions in the NVETR Act can also be fined directly by ASQA under a new infringement notice scheme. This allows ASQA to quickly resolve some clear cut breaches of the legislation. Penalties for fines range from a couple of thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars for a single breach, and for multiple breaches there is the potential for the ultimate fine to be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Australian Government is open to exploring whether the legislative framework could be improved by enhancing ASQA's ability to take swift regulatory action against RTOs delivering inadequate training or assessment, particularly where the RTO is a repeat offender. The Australian Government is, however, cognisant of the need to ensure ASQA's powers are consistent with procedural fairness and appropriate review rights for training providers. Possible improvements to the framework are being explored as part of various streams of ongoing work.
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education and Training should have to approve any instances of Registered Training Organisations subcontracting out components of their VET FEE-HELP eligible training to non-registered third parties.
The Australian Government supports this recommendation
VET Student Loans were introduced on 1 January 2017 replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Under VET Student Loans, third party delivery of training will only be allowed in circumstances where the third party is also an approved VET Student Loan provider or accredited with the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). Providers will be prohibited from using brokers or marketing agents to interact or engage with students at enrolment or any other time throughout their training.
Recommendation 13
The Committee recommends that the Australian Skills Quality Authority maintains its close scrutiny on and gives priority to the Early Childhood and Aged Care training sectors, given the concerns noted in this report.
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) applies a risk-based approach to the regulation of registered training organisations (RTOs). In accordance with this approach, greater regulatory scrutiny and resources are directed towards those organisations or sectors which are deemed to pose the highest risk to quality outcomes.
In recent years, ASQA has comprehensively investigated and reported on the significant systemic risks to quality training that exist in the early childhood education and care sector and in the aged and community care training sector. As a result of this analysis, ASQA continues to treat the regulation of these sectors as a high priority. ASQA is also working with the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority and other stakeholders to improve the process for reporting quality concerns to ASQA.
The Government welcomes ASQA's increased focus on aged and community care and early childhood education and care training when undertaking compliance audits, and supports ASQA's enforcement of appropriate penalties where it finds RTOs to be non-compliant with the national standards in these important sectors.
Recommendation 14
The Committee recommends that the underpinning legislation for the Australian Skills Quality Authority be revamped in order to give the regulator sufficient powers to adequately regulate the Vocational Education and Training sector, to protect the rights of students and to act more firmly and quickly to stamp out abuses.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government has implemented a range of reforms to ensure the Australian Skills Quality Authority's (ASQA's) underpinning legislation allows it to effectively regulate the VET sector. These reforms include amendments to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act), strengthened national standards and the introduction of an infringement notice scheme. In June 2017, the Government announced a review of the NVETR Act so that the legislative framework governing the sector is sustainable, efficient and effective and that it responds to the needs of students, training organisations and employers.
When states referred powers to the Commonwealth under the NVETR Act, powers in relation to student advocacy or protection were specifically excluded and remain with state and territory consumer bodies. As such, the Australian Government is not able to provide ASQA with an additional function of protecting students' rights without the agreement of state governments to refer such powers to the Commonwealth.
The Australian Government has introduced a range of mechanisms to support students in the VET sector. The new Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (the Standards), that were introduced from 1 January 2015, strengthen consumer protection in the VET sector by increasing RTOs' obligations relating to information provided to students. In particular, the Standards make RTOs responsible for the conduct of any third parties operating on their behalf, and strengthen requirements around marketing of training and the information provided to students, including clear information about any income contingent loans, government funded subsidies or other financial arrangements.
In 2015, the Australian Government established a National Training Complaints Hotline to streamline and simplify the reporting of complaints by training consumers and to help authorities deal with poor quality providers. The Hotline directs student complaints to the appropriate Commonwealth, state or territory organisation for help and provides evidence to governments to inform policy development.
Recommendation 15
The Committee further recommends that the Australian Skills Quality Authority improves its processes to enable it to more swiftly share information with other levels of government, regulators, government departments and law enforcement agencies.
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act) contains provisions allowing the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) to share a range of information with state and territory ministers and other relevant bodies.
ASQA shares its regulatory information with government agencies under arrangements outlined in established Memoranda of Understanding (MoU).
In 2016, ASQA developed new communication protocols with state and territory governments. ASQA also shares information with law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on a case-by-case basis.
ASQA has established a dedicated working group with the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training (the department) to continue sharing data and other intelligence information on areas of current and emerging risk. As part of this arrangement, ASQA and the department are collaborating to pool information, protect the provision of quality VET, improve quality outcomes for learners and strengthen the administration of public monies. The shared information has allowed ASQA and the department to develop a more sophisticated understanding of providers and has assisted in identifying those providers which are of greatest concern. ASQA is using the information as part of its regulatory strategy to target providers which demonstrate concerning behaviour.
Recommendation 16
The Committee recommends that an Ombudsman focused on domestic students in the VET sector be created, and further suggests that this position be industry-funded
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
The Government has established a VET Student Loans Ombudsman that began on 1 July 2017, in order to strengthen student protection. The Ombudsman will:
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY AUSTRALIAN GREENS SENATORS
Additional Recommendation 1
Abolishing the contestability model of funding. Education should not be treated as a commodity and market-based approaches will not achieve the goals of the VET sector. Therefore adequate public funds should be guaranteed to public institutions to remove the competition incentives and the associated race to the bottom in terms of quality and costs.
and
Additional Recommendation 3
Eliminating public funding for-profit private providers. Government support should only be given to institutions which can guarantee that student and staff interests come first. Funding is scarce and should be spent where it will do the most good fo r the community. Public funds should not be subsidising the profits of private providers.
The Australian Government does not support these recommendations
The Australian Government supports contestability in training markets as it promotes student choice and encourages efficiency, responsiveness and innovation among registered training organisations (RTOs). Contestability is a core part of the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD) and the previous National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (Skills Reform NP). In the NASWD, all governments committed to:
encourage responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open and competitive training market;
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and comrnunities; 3
Importantly, this support for TAFE institutes to adapt to a more competitive training market should not be in conflict with, or at the expense of, contestability and provision of choice for consumers. Contestability is a reform element of the Skills Reform NP that has been implemented allowing for jurisdictional flexibility with outcomes intended to improve accessibility, equity, transparency, efficiency and responsiveness of training. This flexibility has resulted in eight distinct systems that have been tailored, and continue to be refined, based on jurisdictional differences.
The Australian Government budgeted $1.8 billion to state and territory governments for their training systems in 2017-18, of which $1.5 billion is through the National Skills and Workforce Development Specific Purpose Payment and $350 million through the Skilling Australians Fund (the Fund). States and territories manage the main subsidy systems for VET within their jurisdictions.
Over 2017-18 to 2020-21, the Commonwealth will commit an estimated $1.5 billion to the new and ongoing Skilling Australians Fund (the Fund). With matched funding from the states and territories, the Fund will support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees, pre- and higher-level apprentices over the next four years. Spending from the Fund will be prioritised towards projects brought forward from states and territory governments which support apprenticeships and traineeships in: occupations in demand, industries and sectors of future growth, trade apprenticeships, rural and regional Australia, and industries facing structural adjustment.
The new partnership focuses on strong accountability, transparency and clear outcomes for skills training and the broader economy. All project proposals will need to demonstrate engagement with, and support from employers and industry. Payments to states will require the signing of the new agreement, agreeing to projects with clear milestones and the states demonstrating achievement of those milestones.
Each jurisdiction decides how much funding to provide to their training system and how it should be spent. Therefore, some aspects of the additional recommendations are outside the scope of the Australian Government's responsibilities.
Additional Recommendation 2
Capping funding to private RTOs to ensure the primacy of public education. If the contestability model remains, the proportion of funds allocated contestably should be capped at 15%, with TAFE guaranteed secure access to at least 85% of all funds allocated to each course code. No private provider should be funded for any course that TAFE can provide. This will at least shield TAFE from the worst aspects of contestability and ensure some stability for the sector.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation
The Australian Government supports contestability in training markets as it promotes student choice and encourages efficiency, responsiveness, and innovation among registered training organisations (RTOs). The Australian Government believes that policy settings in training markets should support students and employers in having a choice of quality training offerings, regardless of whether the training provider is a TAFE, an enterprise RTO, a community based adult education provider.
A significant cap on the level of contestable funding removes individual and industry choice.
Additional Recommendation 4
Banning brokers to reduce perverse incentives. While the Committee's majority report recommends the government cap or otherwise regulate the level of fees paid to brokers at a maximum of 15% of the loan, this will not remove the perverse incentive for brokers to act . against the interests of the potential student. Regardless of the payment system, the whole practice of brokering exacerbates the tension between profit maximisation and student interests that private providers already have difficulty negotiating.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
The Australian Government is determined to stamp out unscrupulous sales practices in the VET sector, whether carried out by rogue brokers or persons employed directly by registered training organisations (RTOs). The Australian Government is focusing on ensuring existing prohibitions against this conduct are effectively enforced and these practices are eradicated.
Students' interests are currently protected in a range of ways. Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct by any person carrying on a business in the VET sector.
Making a misleading representation about a VET qualification is also prohibited under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act) and a range of civil and criminal penalties may apply to any person who breaches this obligation. The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) is also able to issue a fine for anyone violating certain provisions of the NVETR Act under the new infringement notice scheme.
The contract for the delivery of training is between the RTO and the student. Accordingly, the RTO must be ultimately responsible for the conduct of its employees and any third parties dealing directly with prospective students. RTOs are held accountable for this conduct under the Standards for RTOs 2015.
VET Student Loans were introduced from 1 January 2017—replacing the VET FEE-HELP scheme. Under VET Student Loans, third party delivery of training will only be allowed in circumstances where the third party is also an approved VET Student Loan provider or accredited with the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). Providers will be prohibited from using brokers or marketing agents to interact or engage with students at enrolment or any other time throughout their training.
1 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, Clause 25c and d,
<httn://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npaiskills/national-partnership/skills-reform NA.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
2 Figures derived from the Australian Skills Quality Authority Annual Reports.
3 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, Clause 25c and d, <httn://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npaiskills/national-partnership/skills-reform NA.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
Appendix A
Senate Inquiry into the role of TAFE Terms of Reference
a) the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 August 2015:
The operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia, including:
i. the access private VET providers have to Commonwealth and state public funding,
ii. the cost of education at private VET providers,
iii. the regulatory regime private VET providers operate within,
iv. the operation of VET-FEE-HELP,
v. the quality of education provided by private VET providers, volume of learning requirements and graduate outcomes,
vi. marketing and promotional techniques employed by private VET providers and education brokers both domestic and international,
vii. any incidents or allegations of non-compliance with regulation and funding arrangements at private VET providers,
viii. political donations made by private VET providers,
ix. international comparisons to the Australian funding and regulatory regime,
x. the operation, regulation and funding of private VET providers specifically offering courses in aged care and early childhood education and their labour market outcomes, and
xi. any related matters; and
b) the Committee will table interim reports to the Senate on 2 March 2015 and 15 June 2015.
Australian Government response to the Senate Committee on Education and Employment report
Inquiry into the role of the Technical and Further Education system and its operation February 2018
Introduction
On 11 December 2013, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment References Committee (the Committee) was asked by the Senate to undertake an inquiry into Technical and Further Education in Australia. The terms of reference are at Appendix A.
The Australian Government welcomes the report by the Committee. The Committee released its report Technical and Further Education in Australia on 14 May 2014. The report made 10 recommendations. Coalition Senators made a dissenting report with amendments to two recommendations (Recommendations 1 and 6) in the majority report. The Coalition Senators did not support Recommendation 10 in its entirety and proposed an additional recommendation. Australian Greens Senators provided additional comments and made six additional recommendations.
The Australian Government has considered the Committee's report and provides a response to each of the 10 recommendations individually, or against a group of recommendations where appropriate. The Australian Government also responds to the amended recommendations and alternative recommendation from the Coalition Senators, and the additional recommendations from the Australian Greens Senators.
The Australian Government recognises and supports the important role played by public providers (referred to as TAFE institutes) in the broader vocational education and training (VET) sector. In 2016, approximately 52 per cent (660, 400) of all Government subsidised VET students were enrolled at a TAFE or other government provider.' TAFE plays an important role in providing training to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and in rural and regional areas. The Australian Government notes that the Committee's report highlights some of these important roles and the significance of TAFE in the provision of high quality training that delivers workers with the skills needed by industry.
Since the tabling of this report, the Australian Government now has the benefit of Total VET Activity (TVA) data from 2014, 2015 and 2016 including information about unsubsidised training at private providers. The 2016 TVA data shows students choose a variety of training providers: around 2.5 million (58.7 per cent) were attending private training providers; around 740, 000 (17.6 per cent) were attending TAFE institutions and the remainder undertook VET with community education providers and with schools, enterprise providers and universities.2
Many of the recommendations of the report are outside the scope of the Australian Government as states and territories manage the delivery of VET within their jurisdictions.
States and territories ensure the effective operation of the subsidised training market in their jurisdiction. As part of this, each jurisdiction decides how much funding to provide to their training system and how it should be spent, including the proportion of funds provided to public providers (TAFE institutes), the role of public providers in their state system and the degree to which training subsidies are contestable between public and private RTOs. Fees for students are set by state governments or registered training organisations (RTOs), depending on the jurisdiction.
States and territories have historically provided approximately two thirds of government funding for subsidised training. However, the Mitchell Institute paper Expenditure on education and training in Australia3 showed that Commonwealth expenditure on VET grew at a faster rate than expenditure by all states and territories except Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia between 2003-04 and 2012-13.
The Government will spend approximately $3.1 billion on VET in 2017-18. This includes $1.85 billion in payments to states and territories for the operation of their training systems and $1.2 billion for the Government's own programs.
From 2017-18 to 2020-21, the Commonwealth will commit an estimated $1.5 billion to the new and ongoing Skilling Australians Fund (the Fund). The Fund is for payments to the states and territories through a new partnership agreement. With matched funding from the states and territories, the Fund will support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees, pre- and higher-level apprentices over the next four years. Spending from the Fund will be prioritised towards projects brought forward from states and territory governments which support apprenticeships and traineeships in: occupations in demand, industries and sectors of future growth, trade apprenticeships, rural and regional Australia, and industries facing structural adjustment.
Australian Government financial support to TAFE institutes includes income contingent loans to TAFE students, both full fee-paying and state subsidised students, studying at or above Diploma level. On 1 January 2017, VET Student Loans commenced, replacing VET FEE-HELP. TAFEs that were provisionally approved as VET student loans approved course providers were able to commence operating under VET Student Loans from 1 January 2017 and were granted an approval period of seven years. Additionally, the Government
considered individual applications from not-for-profit and listed providers (including TAFEs) to have additional courses added to their scope where they could demonstrate strong employment outcomes. The full list of courses is outlined in the Courses and Loan Caps Determination.
In April 2012, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a revised National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD). Associated with the NASWD is $1.5 billion that the Commonwealth provides to states and territories each year through the National Skills and Workforce Development Specific Purpose Payment.
In the context of the NASWD, COAG identified a number of policy reform directions for the national training system. In particular, all governments committed to:
encourage responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open and competitive training market;
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and communities,'
In April 2012, COAG also agreed the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (Skills Reform NP). The Commonwealth committed $1.75 billion over five years from 2012 for the Skills Reform NP to improve the accessibility, transparency, quality and efficiency of the national VET system.
Key reforms included a national entitlement to a government subsidised training place to a minimum of the first Certificate III qualification, which:
a) is accessible through any registered training organisation (RTO), public or private, which meets state-based criteria for access to the national training entitlement; 5
In addition states and territories have also committed to develop and implement:
... strategies which enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and communities. 6
Importantly, this support for TAFE institutes to adapt to a more competitive training market should not be in conflict with, or at the expense of, contestability and provision of choice for consumers.
These commitments to greater contestability in training subsidies between public and private providers continue earlier market-like approaches to the national training market. For example, 'user choice' funding for apprenticeships was introduced in 1998 to enable employers to send their apprentices and trainees to the public or private training provider of their choice.
Recommendation
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth work with its COAG partners on the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform to ensure that all States and Territories provide clear statements of policy direction on the role of TAFE in consultation with vulnerable industries.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Skilling Australians Fund will provide a new agreement with states and territories, superseding the funding and framework of the previous National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. The new partnership focuses on strong accountability, transparency and clear outcomes for skills training and the broader economy. With matched funding from the states and territories, the Fund will support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees, pre- and higher-level apprentices over the next four years.
The Fund will be prioritised towards projects brought forward from states and territory governments which support apprenticeships and traineeships in the following key areas: occupations in demand, industries and sectors of future growth, trade apprenticeships, rural and regional areas and industries experiencing structural adjustment. The projects may also focus on a range of priority industries, including: tourism, hospitality, health and aged care, engineering, building and construction, agriculture, manufacturing and digital technologies.
All project proposals will need to demonstrate engagement with, and support from, employers and industry. Payments to states will require the signing of the new agreement, agreeing to projects with clear milestones and the states demonstrating achievement of those milestones.
The Australian Government believes the commitment made as part of the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD) in 2012 provides a clear statement of policy direction on the role of TAFE. As part of the NASWD, COAG identified a number of policy reform directions for the national training system. In particular, all governments committed to:
encourage responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open and competitive training market;
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and communities
In addition, the Australian Government considers that, as TAFE institutes are owned by state governments, it is state governments that are responsible for setting the vision and direction for TAFE institutes within their jurisdictions.
The Australian Government also acknowledges the part quality private registered training organisations play in the Australian VET system and the role they can play supporting industry and other consumers in a competitive training environment.
The Australian Government is committed to lifting the quality of Australia's VET system to ensure training delivers to students the skills they need for real jobs in the modern economy. This commitment includes a focus on placing employers at the centre of the training system to enable it to be more responsive to the needs of industry.
The Australian Government recognises that it is industry and employers who should be driving the nation's training system, as their knowledge and input is crucial to ensuring that skills standards and competencies align with modern work-practices. Developing a more dynamic approach to industry engagement will facilitate a more flexible training system capable of meeting the current and emerging skill needs of employers, of all sizes and across all industry sectors.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends the Commonwealth government work with its COAG partners to develop a partnership agreement establishing a minimum and adequate level of support for people with disabilities.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation .
The Australian Government and states and territories have agreements through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD) and National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (Skills Reform NP) that recognise the role of public providers in supporting a diverse range of students and other users. The Australian Government budgeted $1.5 billion in 2016-17 under the NASWD and $527 million under the Skills Reform NP. From 2017-18 the Skills Reform NP will be superseded by the Skilling Australians Fund which will provide an estimated $1.5 billion in funding, matched from the states, to support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees, pre- and higher-level apprentices over the next four years. Spending from the Fund will be prioritised towards projects brought forward from states and territory governments which support apprenticeships and traineeships in: occupations in demand, industries and sectors of future growth, trade apprenticeships, rural and regional Australia, people from targeted cohorts and industries facing structural adjustment.
In the context of the NASWD, COAG identified a number of policy reform directions for the national training system. In particular, all governments committed to:
encourage responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open and competitive training market;
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and communities; 8
Under the Skills Reform NP, five jurisdictions (Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory) chose to nominate targets for students with a disability. The Australian Government provided $86 million to the states in June 2017 for meeting these targets in 2016.
The Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (the Standards for RTOs 2015), which came into effect from 1 January 2015, have strengthened requirements for the provision of information to learners by RTOs. An RTO is required to provide or make readily
available information to the learner that outlines the services (including educational and support services) the RTO will provide as well as the rights and obligations of the learner.
Under the Standards for RTOs 2015, RTOs are required to provide reasonable adjustments where appropriate to take into account the individual learner's needs.
The Australian Government also has broader commitments to supporting people with disabilities. The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (NDS) provides a ten-year national policy framework for improving lives of Australians with disability, their families and carers. It represents a commitment by all levels of government, industry and the community to a unified, national approach to policy and program development. One of the central outcomes of the strategy is to ensure that people with disability achieve their full potential through their participation in an inclusive high quality education system that is responsive to their needs, and that people with disability have opportunities to continue learning throughout their lives.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is a key government deliverable under the NDS. The NDIS provides funding for long-term, individualised care and support that is reasonable and necessary to meet the needs of people with permanent disability, where a person's disability significantly affects their communication, mobility, self-care or self-management. The scheme takes a lifelong approach to providing care and support. In 2019-20, the scheme will assist around 460,000 Australians, costing governments approximately $21 billion.
According to the 30 June 2017 quarterly report to COAG on the NDIS9, the number of participants in the Scheme continues to grow with 90,638 participants with an approved plan at 30 June 2017. The National Disability Insurance Agency is working with local communities to improve inclusion of people with disability and build awareness of
disability. The Agency is also aiming to foster innovation, research and best practice to better support people with disability.
Effective interaction between the NDIS and other service systems, including schools and other education systems, is critical to ensure smooth transitions for participants, to avoid cost-shifting, duplication and service gaps. Mainstream interactions are guided by the legislative framework for the scheme, which includes the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and associated Rules; and a set of Applied Principles and Tables of Supports that were agreed by the COAG in April 2013 and updated in November 2015. Applied principles for school education, higher education and vocational educational and training detail the roles and responsibilities for the NDIS and those service systems. More information about the applied principles can be found on the COAG website: https://www.coag.gov.auimeetingoutcomes/coag-meeting-communiqu%C3%A9-11-december-2015.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that resources and funding for the Australian Skills Quality Authority be proportionally increased relative to the number of private providers entering the training market.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
In 2014, the Australian Government committed an additional $68 million over four years to the Australian Skills Quality Authority to implement VET regulatory reform initiatives. While the funding was not increased in a proportioned basis, it allows better targeting of those providers which may be bringing the training sector into disrepute.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends the development of improved government standards for registration of training organisations, as the current regulatory environment provides no guarantee of quality for students.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation
Aspects of the VET Quality Framework were reviewed under the auspices of the COAG Industry and Skills Council in 2014. This included review of the national standards for RTOs and VET regulators.
The Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (Standards for RTOs 2015), form part of the VET Quality Framework. As defined in section 3 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (the NVETR Act), the VET Quality Framework is comprised of the Standards for RTOs 2015, the Quality Standards, the Australian Qualifications Framework, the Fit and Proper Person Requirements, the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements and the Data Provision Requirements.
The Standards for RTOs 2015 are supported by amendments to the NVETR Act, passed by the Australian Parliament on 16 March 2015, to better facilitate the efficient and effective operation of the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority.
The new standards will continue to improve the quality of VET delivery by:
The new Standards for RTOs 2015 came into effect from 1 January 2015, applying to new RTOs immediately and to existing RTOs from 1 April 2015.
Specifically, the new Standards for RTOs 2015 and the legislative amendments:
In addition, the new Standards for VET Regulators 2015 ensure:
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government supports contestability in training markets as it promotes student choice and encourages efficiency, responsiveness, and innovation among registered training organisations (RTOs). The Australian Government has agreed with the states and territories on a number of policy reform directions for the national training system through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD) and the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (Skills Reform NP). From 1 July 2017 the Skills Reform NP was superseded by the Skilling Australians Fund. Spending from the Fund will be prioritised towards projects brought forward from state and territory governments which support apprenticeships and traineeships in: occupations in demand, industries and sectors of future growth, trade apprenticeships, rural and regional Australia, and industries facing structural adjustment.
In the NASWD, all governments committed to:
encourage responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open and competitive training market;
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and communities. to
The Australian Government considers that state governments are responsible for the operation of their training markets within their jurisdictions and ensuring TAFEs are able to operate effectively in a competitive environment.
The Australian Government supports increased transparency around funding provided to TAFEs; including funding for community service obligations and other non-contestable amounts to ensure the efficient operation of training markets. While the Australian Government acknowledges the states and territories are responsible for designing their training markets, it supports access to a broad range of quality training providers as the best way to meet the needs of industry and other consumers.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that COAG work collaboratively to develop a national workforce strategy for TAFE that addresses the level and quality of teaching qualifications in the sector, the unacceptably high rates of casual employment, and the allocation of adequate resources to enable TAFE teachers and institutions to develop and maintain close liaison with industry and local communities to assist them to meet their vocational and technical education needs .
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
TAFE institutes, their governance, workplace relations and staffing are a matter for the states and territories.
The Australian Government does, however, recognise the importance of high-quality delivery of training and assessment being closely linked to industry to ensure training delivered to students is industry relevant, vocationally-targeted and improves a student's chances of securing employment in their field of study. To support trainer quality, the new Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (the Standards for RTOs) strengthen requirements relating to the experience and qualifications that VET practitioners must hold.
Under previous standards, in lieu of holding the prescribed trainer and assessor qualification, trainers and assessors were allowed to have competencies 'equivalent' to the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, with 'equivalence' determined by the RTO. Concerns regarding the robustness of some RTO determinations of equivalence led to the removal of this allowance.
Under the new Standards for RTOs 2015, all trainers and assessors must now possess the prescribed qualification. From 1 January 2016, trainers and assessors are required to have the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, with some transition arrangements applying to these changes. In addition, from 1 January 2017, those delivering the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment are required to hold a relevant Diploma.
Further, in November 2015, the COAG Industry and Skills Council agreed the
Australian Government Skills Minister would consult with VET stakeholders and all jurisdictions on reform options to improve assessment in VET, and that the Council will give further consideration to actions to improve the quality of assessment outcomes. Priority areas for investigation included approaches to strengthening the skills of VET trainers and assessors.
The consultation process was supported by the Training and Assessment Working Group, comprised of industry and training leaders, regulators, peak bodies, and employer and worker organisations. In May 2016, the Working Group finalised its report on improving the quality of assessment in VET. The COAG Industry and Skills agreed to undertake further work on the Working Group's recommendations to improve the quality of the assessment in VET.
In April 2016, the COAG Industry and Skills Council agreed to the Australian Industry and Skills Committee's decision to update the Training and Education Training Package. The changes strengthen the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment through the inclusion of additional units in addressing adult language, literacy and numeracy skills and designing and development of assessment tools. In July 2017, the COAG Industry and Skills Council agreed to apply these changes to the existing VET workforce. The Standards for RTOs 2015 have been amended. Current trainers and assessors will be required to undertake gap training by 1 April 2019.
Recommendation 7
In light of the substantial increases in fees across the board, the committee recommends that COAG investigate these fee increases.
Recommendation 8
Further the committee recommends that criteria for access to assistance programs for fees be examined to ensure that access to VET training is not inhibited by upfront cost considerations.
The Australian Government notes these recommendations.
State and territory governments have responsibility for their own training systems. State governments decide the fee arrangements that apply to government subsidised students in their jurisdiction, and determine whether fees are capped at a particular level or uncapped and set by the training provider.
Since the November 2015 COAG Industry and Skills Council meeting, the Australian Government in conjunction with state and territory governments have been focused on improving access to information, which will assist consumers of VET to choose between course and provider offerings and provide a more accurate picture of student progression through the VET system and employment outcomes. In November 2015, skills ministers agreed to national actions including developing new indicators and measures, revising survey instruments and increasing consumer access to information, including on the My Skills website. Work in this area is designed to minimise additional impact on training providers.
Loan caps apply to all eligible courses under VET Student Loans. There are three bands of loan caps of $5000, $10,000 and $15,000, which apply irrespective of whether the course is being delivered face-to-face, online, or via mixed delivery modes. A separate loan cap of $75,000 for the aviation training package applies. The application of loan caps on all eligible courses is designed to protect students from rapidly rising course costs, and put downward pressure on fees.
The intent of loan caps is to protect students from rapidly rising course costs while still giving students the ability to choose a course based on a number of factors such as quality of delivery, course content, location and facilities. Therefore, loan caps on courses does not prevent approved VET Student Loan providers from setting tuition fees above the cap, rather it sets a ceiling on the maximum loan amount the government is willing to provide a student for a specific course.
Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that the VET FEE-HELP Loan Fee of 20 per cent be reduced significantly in line with comparable financial industry products.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Ensuring cohesion between the shared elements of HELP is critical as students move between higher education and VET throughout their education experience. Therefore, the current HELP lifetime loan limit, repayment threshold and rates and the loan fee will apply to the VET Student Loans scheme.
The current loan fee arrangements (20 per cent for VET FEE-HELP/ VET Student Loans; and 25 per cent for FEE-HELP; and no loan fee for HECS-HELP) reflect the relative risks associated with the different HELP schemes. Further, even after the current loan fee is taken into account, given their income contingent nature and concessional interest rates, the VET Student loans provided to eligible VET students remain far more concessional than any commercial debt arrangements available to students. For example, a VET student loan with a 20 per cent loan fee and indexed at the consumer price index being repaid over a ten year repayment period would involve the same amount of debt being repaid as a commercial debt with an annual interest rate of around four per cent per annum.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends full and immediate reinstatement of TAFE funding cuts by State Governments.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
State and territory governments have responsibility for running their own training systems. The VET sector is populated by a variety of training providers, TAFE institutes, schools, not for profit and privately owned RTOs and some universities. Each plays an important role in providing quality training outcomes.
In recent years, the states have, to varying degrees, introduced more demand driven approaches to the public funding of training delivery. These changes have occurred for a range of reasons. In some cases, this has resulted in reductions in the level of funding some TAFE institutes receive from states and territories.
As part of NASWD, states and territories are committed to considering strategies for supporting TAFE to operate as part of a contestable funding market.
Ultimately, the focus should always be on ensuring students and users of the VET system have a choice of quality training offerings, regardless of the training provider. Training should improve an individual's chances of getting a job and progressing their career.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN COALITION SENATORS' DISSENTING REPORT
Additional Recommendation 1
The Coalition Senators recommend that states and territories take steps to ensure each TAFE is given capacity to negotiate industrial agreements to ensure TAFEs operate on an equal footing as other vocational education providers.
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
The Australian Government notes that this recommendation is consistent with NASWD `Reform Directions' which commit all Parties to pursuing reform directions including:
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners and communities."
Amendments to majority report Recommendations:
Amend Recommendation 1 from the majority report to read:
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth work through its COAG partners on the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform to ensure that all States and Territories provide clear statements of policy direction on the role of TAFE in consultation with affected industries to ensure a quality education for students.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government refers to its response to Recommendation 1 of the Majority Report.
Amend Recommendation 6 from the majority report to read:
The Committee recommends that COAG work collaboratively to develop a national workforce strategy for TAFE that addresses the level and quality of teaching qualifications in the sector.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government refers to its response to Recommendation 6 of the Majority Report.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY AUSTRALIAN GREENS SENATORS
Additional Recommendation 1
An end to the current model of competitive tendering of government vocational education and training and a comprehensive public examination and review of the consequences of full competition on TAFE, including the impact on the quality of vocational education, levels of student support and teaching infrastructure, and a reassessment of the case and justification for a competitive training market.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The Australian Government considers that a more open training market will produce better outcomes for students and industry and drive competition, efficiency and innovation. It offers students and employers greater choice in selecting the training course and provider which best meets their needs and circumstances.
As noted above, when COAG agreed the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD) in 2012, all jurisdictions committed to a number of policy reform directions for the national training system, including to:
encourage responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open and competitive training market;
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of greater competition, recognising their important function in servicing the training needs of industry, regions and local communities, and their role that spans high level training and workforce development for industries and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvanta ged learners and communities. 12
Additional Recommendation 2
A complete and rigorous examination of the real costs of the provision of high quality vocational an d further education, including:
(a) technical skills for work,
(b) adult literacy and numeracy,
(c) crucial supporting knowledge and theory,
(d) student support and counselling services,
(e) support for the development of relationships with industry and employers,
0 support for the development of relationships and partnerships with universities and schools,
(g) support for research and innovation,
(h) support for initial qualifications and ongoing professional development for teachers and staff.
The Australian Government notes the recommendation.
The costs of provision and delivery of training vary according to a range of factors, which may include course characteristics, geographic location, whether delivered in the workplace, classroom or online, the characteristics of the student and broader population, and factors specific to the nature and operations of the registered training organisations.
The Australian Government considers that a more open training market will produce better outcomes for students and industry and drive competition, efficiency and innovation. It offers students and employers greater choice in selecting the training course and provider which best meets their needs and circumstances.
The focus should always be on ensuring students and users of the VET system have a choice of quality training offerings, regardless of the training provider. Training should improve an individual's chances of getting a job and progressing their career.
Additional Recommendation 3
Guaranteed funding for the public TAFE system based on the actual costs of providing education, and on a funding model that supports a strong and increased base for capital works, maintenance, infrastructure, and equipment, and which properly recognises the important role of TAFE in providing vocational and technical education in areas of high and low demand, in rural and remote areas and improved access and participation for disadvantaged learners.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The Australian Government considers that a more open training market will produce better outcomes for students and industry and drive competition and efficiency. It offers students and employers greater choice in selecting the training course and provider which best meets their needs and circumstances.
State and territory governments have responsibility for running their own training systems. As part of this, state and territory governments decide how much funding to provide to training and how it should be spent. This includes arrangements for training subsidies, TAFE institutes and capital expenditure in their jurisdiction.
The Australian Government supports giving students and employers the choice of any high quality training provider, whether public or private. High quality training and courses boost job opportunities for students and enable businesses to employ people with the right skills for work. Therefore, training must be responsive to industry and support students and employers to choose the training and training provider that best meets their needs.
Additional Recommendation 4
The national entitlement to a guaranteed training place should only be offered at TAFE, it should not be restricted to selected qualifications or industry areas, and it should be available as many times as a student requires.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The Australian Government considers that a more open training market will produce better outcomes for students and industry and drive competition, efficiency and innovation. It offers students and employers greater choice in selecting the training course and provider which best meets their needs and circumstances.
The essential minimum criteria for the training entitlement, as set out in Schedule 3 to the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, include:
The national training entitlement will be an entitlement to access a government subsidised training place to a minimum of the first Certificate III qualification, which:
a) is accessible through any registered training organisation (RTO), public or private, which meets state-based criteria for access to the national training entitlement; and
b) is available as a minimum to all working age Australians (from post-school to age pension age) without a Certificate ill or higher qualification, subject to meeting minimum entry requirements and state based criteria; and
c) includes foundation skills or lower qualifications contained within the Certificate 111 qualification."
Schedule 3 further notes that "Jurisdictions are encouraged to go beyond the minimum required, where affordable, and may vary other criteria...". These criteria relate to eligibility, field of qualification and location.
From 1 July 2017, the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform was superseded by the Skilling Australians Fund. The Fund is for payments to the states and territories through a new partnership agreement. With matched funding from the states and territories, the Fund will support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees, pre- and higher-level apprentices over the next four years. The focus on apprenticeships and traineeships, the flagships of the Australian VET sector, reflects their crucial role in fulfilling the needs of industries which rely on a skilled workforce to drive innovation and growth.
By focusing on apprenticeships and traineeships, the Fund will boost the number of people who choose and succeed in this pathway, supporting more Australians to get the skills they need for jobs in demand.
Additional Recommendation 5
The development of improved standards for registration of training organisations, and the provision of vocational education. The now defunct National Skills Standards Council made a start on the development of improved standards, but this work was set in the context of a rapid opening up of the market under the National Agreement . for Skills and Workforce Development. This work now needs to be revisited and the standards strengthened and improved The current regulatory environment provides no guarantee of quality for students, nor any mechanism for them to get their money back, or their once only entitlement back if the provider they attended provided no training, or was of poor quality. Every provider seeking registration to deliver vocational education in Australia should have the provision of vocational education as its primary purpose.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
In 2014, aspects of the VET Quality Framework were reviewed under the auspices of the COAG Industry and Skills Council. This included review of the national standards for registered training organisations (RTOs) and for VET regulators.
The Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (Standards for RTOs 2015) form part of the VET Quality Framework. As defined in section 3 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (the NVETR Act), the VET Quality Framework is comprised of the Standards for RTOs 2015, the Quality Standards, the Australian Qualifications Framework, the Fit and Proper Person Requirements, the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements and the Data Provision Requirements.
The Standards for RTOs 2015 are supported by amendments to the NVETR Act, passed by the Australian Parliament on 16 March 2015, to better facilitate the efficient and effective operation of the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority.
The new Standards for RTOs 2015 will improve the quality of VET delivery by:
The new Standards for RTOs 2015 came into effect from 1 January 2015, applying to new RTOs immediately and to existing RTOs from 1 April 2015.
Specifically, the new Standards for RTOs 2015 and the legislative amendments:
Further amendments to the NVETR Act require persons marketing VET courses to clearly identify the RTO responsible for issuing the qualification. This will allow the ASQA to take action against a RTO whose agent fails to provide clear information to a prospective student about the qualification they are signing up for, available support services, and the costs associated with the qualification, including any debt which may be incurred.
In addition, the new Standards for VET Regulators 2015 ensure:
The Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Act 2015 passed through Parliament in December 2015 and enacted new measures from 1 January 2016 to further strengthen the scheme. These changes controlled growth ahead of the replacement of VET FEE-HELP with VET Student Loans, which better reflects the nature and practice of the VET sector.
There are more stringent requirements placed on providers seeking to offer eligible courses through VET Student Loans and only high quality, trusted providers will be approved.
A new application process applies to providers who wish to access the VET Student Loans program, regardless of whether they were a provider under VET FEE-HELP. Under the new application approval process, providers will be assessed against a range of criteria including: financial performance, strong management and governance, applicants' relationships with industry, student outcomes, and the provider's three-year track record of delivering education and training.
In recognition that TAFEs and public providers are low risk, under VET Student Loans, TAFEs, publicly owned RTOs and Australian universities (accredited as RTOs) that are provisionally approved as VET student loans approved course providers will not be required to apply for full approval under the new program and can commence operating under VET Student Loans from 1 January 2017.
Additional Recommendation 6
As part of the development of improved standards, there must be a mandated minimum funded duration of learning in all vocational education qualifications. It is the lack of a mandated minimum which, for example, allows providers to deliver qualifications over weekends, and then be paid as if they had delivered the full qualification.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation at this stage.
The Australian Government considers the quality of VET graduates to be a significant issue and is seeking to ensure all national training provides the learner with the competencies required to participate in the workforce.
However, there is a tension between mandated minimums for course duration and the model of competency based training on which the national VET system rests. In a competency based environment, learners are not required to study for a set number of weeks or months. This acknowledges that learners are at different stages in the development of their competencies and also allows for recognition of prior learning as an appropriate and
important part of the VET system.
The Australian Government is considering the regulatory architecture in relation to duration of learning in a competency based system to ensure that regulatory oversight is adequate. In particular, it is committed to ensuring effective regulatory oversight of registered training organisations (RTO) compliance with the Standards for RTOs. Specifically, Standard 1.1 requires RTO training and assessment strategies and practices to have regard to the amount of training required for the learner to gain the competencies as specified in the relevant training package or VET accredited course.
The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) released a Strategic Review of issues relating to unduly short training on 30 June 2017. Senior officials have also agreed to consider a pilot that investigates the impact of course duration on the quality of training outcomes. The recommendations from ASQA's Strategic Review will be incorporated into the Australian Government's consideration of the methodology and implications of such a pilot.
1 NCVER 2017, Australian vocational education and training statistics: government-funded students and courses 2016, NCVER, Adelaide ( Table 2).
2 NCVER 2017, Australian vocational education and training statistics: total VET students and courses 2016, NCVER, Adelaide (Table 3 proportion calculated),
3 P Noonan, G Burke, A Wade and S Pilcher, Expenditure on education and training in Australia. Analysis and background paper No 01/2014, Mitchell Institute, 2014 using ABS Government Finance Statistics, Education 2012-13 and a custom data request.
4 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, Clause 25c and d,
<http://wwwiederal financialrelations.gov.au/content/npaiskillsinational -partnership/skills-reform NA. pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
5 COAG, Natrona! Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, Clause 28a, <http://federalfinancialtelations.gov.au/content/npaiskills/nationalpartnership/past/skills-reform NP.Ddf> viewed 24 August 2017
6COAG, National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, Clause 29b <httn://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/contentinpaiskills/nationalpartnershiutpast/skills-reform NP.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
7 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, Clause 25c and d,
<http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.auteontent/npaiskills/national-vannership/skills-reform NA.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
8 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, Clause 25c and d,
<http://www.federaltinancialivlations.gov.au/contentinnaiskills/national-partnership/skills-reform NA.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
9 National Disability Insurance Agency, Quarterly Report to COAG Disability Reform Council, 30 June 2017, p.2.
10 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, Clause 25c and d,
<http://wwwlederalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npaiskills/national-partnership/skills-reform NA.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
11 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, Clause 25d,
<http ://www. federalfinancialrelations. goy. au/content/npa/ski I Is/national -partnership/skills-reform NA. pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
12 COAG, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development. Clause 25c and d,
<http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npaiskills/national-partnership/skills-reform NA.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
13COAG, National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, Schedule 3,
<httul/www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npaiskills/national-partnership/skills-reform NA.pdf> viewed 24 August 2017
Appendix A
Senate Inquiry into the role of TAFE Terms of Reference
1. Technical and further education (TAFE) in Australia, including:
a. the role played by TAFEs in:
i. educational linkages with secondary and higher education,
ii. the development of skills in the Australian economy,
iii. the development of opportunities for Australians to improve themselves and increase their life, education and employment prospects, and
iv. the delivery of services and programs to support regions, communities and disadvantaged individuals to access education, training and skills and, through them, a pathway to further education and employment;
b. the effects of a competitive training market on TAFE;
c. what public funding is adequate to ensure TAFEs remain in a strong and sustainable position to carry out their aims;
d. what factors affect the affordability and accessibility of TAFE to students and business;
e. different mechanisms used by state governments to allocate funding; and
f. the application and effect of additional charges to TAFE students.
2. That, in conducting its inquiry, the committee must:
a. consider any public information provided to the 2013 House of Representatives inquiry by the Standing Committee on Education and Employment on the role of the technical and further education system and its operation; and
b. hold public hearings in all capital cities, with a minimum of Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Brisbane, as well as a major regional centre in either New South Wales or Victoria.
The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.
by leave—I move:
That Senator Bartlett be appointed as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to safeguard the Australian public from misrepresentation and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Commonwealth bodies.
The Government condemns the impersonation of Commonwealth bodies and is committed to strengthening public confidence in all communications emanating from them.
Recognising the importance of this issue, this Bill introduces new criminal offences and an injunction power to prevent people from impersonating a Commonwealth body. These measures will ensure the Australian public can have confidence in the legitimacy of communications from Government bodies, and will safeguard the proper functioning of government.
Impersonating a Commonwealth body — criminal offences
It is essential to a well-functioning democracy that the public have trust in the legitimacy of statements made by government bodies. That trust will inevitably be eroded if people are able,
with impunity, to represent themselves as communicating on behalf of government bodies, without any authorisation.
Accordingly, this Bill introduces new offences to criminalise conduct where a person falsely represents themselves to be acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth body.
For the purposes of the new offences, a Commonwealth body could be a Commonwealth entity, a Commonwealth company, or any service, benefit, program or facility provided by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. The offences will capture false representations in relation to a broad range of government bodies and services, from the Attorney-General's Department through to Centrelink and Medicare.
This Bill seeks to address a possible gap in our criminal law, which means that impersonating a Commonwealth entity, company or service may not be appropriately prosecuted. It is already a criminal offence to impersonate a Commonwealth official. It is less clear whether the current offences cover a person pretending to be, or be acting on behalf of, a Commonwealth body—which is why we have taken action.
The Bill introduces offences to ensure the punishment reflects the person's state of mind in making the false representation.
The primary offence covers circumstances where a person intends that, or is reckless as to whether, their conduct will result in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a false representation. This conduct will be punishable by up to two years imprisonment.
The amendments also create a new aggravated offence where a person falsely impersonates a Commonwealth body or service with the intent to obtain a gain, cause a loss, or influence the exercise of a public duty. The more serious and deliberate nature of this conduct warrants an increased maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
These penalties are commensurate with offences for impersonating a Commonwealth official. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that neither of these offences unduly limits freedom of expression.
Impersonating a Commonwealth body — injunction powers
The Bill also enlivens the injunction provisions in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. This will provide persons whose interests have been, or would be, affected by the false representation the opportunity to prevent such conduct through a court-issued injunction.
The Bill will enable affected persons to apply to a relevant court for an injunction to prevent conduct in contravention of the new offences in the Criminal Code.
The purpose of this power is to enable affected persons to act swiftly, if needs be, to prevent conduct amounting to false representation of a Commonwealth body. These amendments are critical to protecting Commonwealth bodies from criminal misrepresentation and ensuring the public has confidence in all communications emanating from Commonwealth bodies.
Conclusion
This Government is committed to safeguarding the proper functioning of Australia's democracy and ensuring that Australians have trust in the validity of communications from Commonwealth bodies. The Bill will strengthen public confidence in all such communications, and ensure that those who deceive the Australian public are captured by the law.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Before I begin my valedictory statement, may I acknowledge the distinguished presence in the President's gallery of a number of visitors, including the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Susan Kiefel, and Justice Edelman of the High Court; the Acting Chief Justice of the Family Court and Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, the Hon. William Alstergren; the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue QC; the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Rosalind Croucher, and members of the commission; two former Commonwealth attorneys-general, the Hon. Philip Ruddock and the Hon. Justice Robert McClelland; the former Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Campbell Newman; many former members of the Senate; and many friends and family members, who have travelled to Canberra for this occasion. I also mention that the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Hon. James Allsop, has a longstanding court commitment in Perth today but has asked me to say that he would have wished to have been here as well.
Last December, shortly after my retirement from parliament was announced, Fairfax newspapers published a column assessing my political career. It was written by Waleed Aly, Australia's most philosophically literate celebrity—indeed, Australia's only philosophically literate celebrity. I have been accused of many things in the Fairfax press, but what Dr Aly accused me of is something I am glad to admit. He accused me of consistency. With a couple of qualifications, he wrote that the various positions I had taken over the years, sometimes in controversial debates like the section 18C debate, were best understood as a consistent adherence to liberal philosophy. I am glad of that, because for nearly 18 years in public life, for most of them on the front bench and for almost half of them in the coalition's leadership group, that is how I have tried to approach issues: by the conscious application of a set of values which I first outlined in my maiden speech, given from this very seat in 2000. In that speech, I quoted the philosophers—Mill, Burke, Isaiah Berlin, Immanuel Kant—who, in my view, represented the best of the classical liberal tradition. It is that tradition and its values that I came here to advance and defend.
There have been some notable successes, which I will mention in a moment. However, I am sorry to say that, after nearly two decades, I find those values under greater challenge than at any time in my memory. The parties of the Left have become even more authoritarian, particularly in their hostility to intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Historically, parties of the Centre Right have opposed the Left's authoritarian mindset with arguments which elegantly balanced classical liberalism, with its belief in the freedom of the individual, with conservatism, with its respect for the integrity of institutions and the wisdom of evolutionary change. That is what the Liberal Party has always done, with reasonable success, over three-quarters of a century.
But increasingly, in recent years, powerful elements of right-wing politics have abandoned both liberalism's concern for the rights of the individual and conservatism's respect for institutions, in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism which shows no respect for either the rights of individual citizens or the traditional institutions which protect them. If I might adopt a brilliant phrase of yours, Mr President, we have seen the development of right-wing postmodernism. A set of attitudes which had its origins in the authoritarian mind of the Left has been translated right across the political spectrum. This presents a threat to both liberalism and conservatism and a profound challenge to the Liberal Party as the custodian of those philosophical traditions.
Being a liberal is not easy because it means respecting the right of people to make choices which we ourselves would not make and of which we may disapprove. It means respecting the right of people to express their opinions, even though others may find those opinions offensive. It means respecting the right of people to practise their religion, even though others may find the tenets of that religion irrational. It means, in a nation of many cultures, respecting the right of people to live according to their culture, even though to others that culture may seem alien. It means respecting the right of everyone to marry the person they love, even though others may find their understanding of marriage confronting. It means rejoicing in the richness of a nation which accepts that every single person is unique and respects the right of every individual to live their lives in their own way, so long as they respect the equal right of others to do so as well.
It does not require us to be comfortable with those different opinions or beliefs or ways of life. But it does mean, as the minimum condition of a liberal society, at least that we be tolerant of them. A liberal society is not based upon any notion of moral equivalence. It is perfectly consistent for me, for instance, to denounce Senator Hanson's views while defending her right to express them. But it is based upon the principle of mutual tolerance, which demands respect for the equal right of every Australian to live their lives in accordance with their own choices: in the way they live, in what they believe, in what they say, in whom they worship, in whom they love.
Those are the values for which I have fought for nearly two decades in the parliament, in the media, in the party room, and in the cabinet and the shadow cabinet—sometimes with success, sometimes not, but always, I hope, consistently. I have also sought to defend the fragile institutions which enshrine those values: parliament, the courts and the rule of law. Just as liberal values are not always easy to defend, neither is the rule of law, for it means insisting upon the equality of all in the eyes of the law, not just those who live blameless lives in the mainstream of society. The rule of law applies equally to the guilty as to the innocent. As Sir Robert Menzies, Australia's greatest lawyer-statesman, said:
Do not let us begin to think lightly of the law. Its rule, its power, its authority are the centre of our civilisation.
I have not disguised my concern at attacks upon the institutions of the law: the courts and those who practice in them. To attack those institutions is to attack the rule of law itself. It is for the Attorney-General always to defend the rule of law, sometimes from political colleagues who fail to understand it or are impatient of the limitations it may impose upon executive power. Although the Attorney is a political official, as the first law officer he has a higher duty: a duty to the law itself. It is a duty which, as my cabinet colleagues know, on several robust occasions I have always placed above political advantage.
For more than four years, I was the minister responsible for domestic national security. That period coincided with the escalation of Islamist terrorism at home and abroad. I believe that we got national security policy right. Certainly it was the view of almost every commentator that it was one of the areas of the government's greatest strength. In December 2016, The Courier-Mail concluded in an editorial:
Our state and federal governments, in the main, have successfully trod a difficult path, finding ways to lay down new levels of security while still allowing both privacy and liberty. … There's a vital balance needed between security and privacy, and for the most part, so far, Australia seems to have got it right.
Our measures to keep our people safe have been successful. While four innocent people have died in lone wolf terrorist attacks, which are almost impossible to anticipate or interdict, importantly, over the same period, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted and prevented 14 major terrorist attacks. In several cases these were intended to be mass casualty attacks on the scale we have recently seen in Britain and Europe. In July last year those disruption operations foiled a plot to bring down an Etihad aircraft bound from Sydney to the Middle East, which would have resulted in hundreds of casualties, most of them Australians. Of course, it is not politicians who should claim the credit for this success. It was the work of the outstanding professionals at ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and the state police. But governments and parliaments do play an important role, by giving the agencies the resources and the powers they need.
In 2014, Prime Minister Abbott asked me to undertake a comprehensive review of Commonwealth law, which resulted in some eight tranches of legislation over the following years—significant achievements of both the Abbott and Turnbull governments. At his press conference announcing that the attempt to bring down the Etihad aircraft had been disrupted last July, the AFP's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, Michael Phelan, explained how the operation—Operation Silves—had been successful. Among other things, he said:
The other thing that's important is the legislation we have used in this particular operation. We have seen, in the last few years in particular, eight tranches of legislation that have been introduced by the government, and let me tell you that some of that legislation that was brought in was what we used to make this investigation get to the stage where it did. So we went from not much to the stage where we were able to charge people with admissible evidence in relation to a very significant terrorist offence.
The legislation to which Deputy Commissioner Phelan was referring, which gave police the powers they needed to make the arrests and save those lives, was legislation debated and passed in this chamber three years ago.
Beyond the obvious skill of intelligence and law enforcement agencies, there are other reasons why our domestic national security policy has been successful over the past four years. Let me mention three. First, we have not overreached. The eight bills I introduced each contained carefully calibrated measures designed to give the agencies the powers they needed, but not more. The public never had reason to fear that governments were using the threat of terrorism as a pretext for a grab for power. So public confidence in the agencies remained, and remains, very high.
Secondly, we have maintained bipartisanship. All eight tranches of legislation were passed with the opposition's support after scrutiny by the PJCIS. It was a fine example of government and parliament working hand in hand to protect the national interest. I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly. One of the main reasons why the government has earned the confidence of the public on national security policy is there has never been a credible suggestion that political motives have intruded. Were they to do so, confidence not just in the government's handling of national security but in the agencies themselves would be damaged and their capacity to do their work compromised. Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage. To his credit, the Prime Minister has always resisted such entreaties.
Thirdly, we have respected the autonomy and independence of the national security agencies and of ASIO in particular. The ASIO Act, appropriately, subjects ASIO to ministerial authorisation and oversight, and accountability to parliament through the PJCIS, but it contains very strict limitations upon the capacity of the minister to direct ASIO on operational matters. The independence of ASIO from ministerial direction in relation to operational matters is a principle which has served Australia well for 70 years and it must remain sacrosanct.
I have had a very fortunate political career.
I have been fortunate in my timing. Of the 18 years I have served in this place, my party has been in government for two-thirds, which meant I had the opportunity to serve as a minister in all three coalition governments of the period—not, by the way, that the thrill of the chase of opposition was not enjoyable in its own way, particularly during the second term of the Labor government. But I never came into politics for the blood sport.
I have been fortunate in my timing for another reason. During my tenure as Attorney-General an unusually large number of members of the federal judiciary reached retirement age. Most Attorney-Generals consider themselves lucky to be responsible for the nomination of one High Court judge. It was my good fortune to be responsible for the nomination of three, together with the nomination of the Chief Justice, Australia's first female Chief Justice, Susan Kiefel. The new Chief Justice of the Family Court, John Pascoe, and the new Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, Will Alstergren, were also appointed on my nomination, as was the new President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Justice David Thomas. In all, about one-fifth of the entire federal judiciary was appointed in the course of the past four years.
Unless they are controversial, judicial appointments attract little notice from political commentators, yet the nomination of candidates to the judiciary is one of the most important things an Attorney-General does. Only he takes recommendations to cabinet for judicial appointments and, in that sense, is the gatekeeper to the third arm of government. I'm immensely proud of the calibre of the women and men who have become members of the federal courts in my time, all of them recognised by those best placed to judge them, their peers in the legal profession, as outstanding.
I have been fortunate in the timing of my departure. Most political careers end in defeat or disillusionment or, in some sad cases, disgrace. I had the immense good fortune to be able to bring my parliamentary career to a close at the very time I had seen the fulfilment of two things which, more than any others, I had made my priorities. Shortly after 6 pm on 7 December last, the last sitting day of the year, the House of Representatives passed the marriage equality bill. The following morning, the Prime Minister and I attended a special meeting of the Federal Executive Council at which the bill was proclaimed. That reform will be a legacy of this government and this parliament which will never be forgotten. In decades, indeed centuries to come, if the 45th Parliament is remembered for nothing else, it will be remembered for this. Many Australians worked hard for this reform over long years. Some of them, like Tom Snow and Anna Brown, are in the gallery today. It was my good fortune to be the Attorney-General in the government which achieved it.
Nobody who was in the House of Representatives that afternoon will forget the spontaneous demonstration which then erupted both on the floor and in the public galleries. Amid the joyous pandemonium, hardly anybody noticed what happened then: the Prime Minister, moving to the next item of business, introduced the foreign interference legislation and adjourned the debate. That legislation, upon which I, my officers and staff had worked with intense focus for most of the year, brought to completion the most comprehensive review of Australia's national security laws in more than a generation. So, by one of those remarkable coincidences with which politics is so replete, the two great pieces of law reform by which I had hoped to define my attorney-generalship: achieving marriage equality and reforming our national security laws—two issues that could hardly be more different—converged in the final minutes of the parliamentary year. The time to close the chapter on my parliamentary career, and so avoid the curse of Enoch Powell, could not have been more exquisite.
No political career is without regrets, but there is only one regret that I want to mention tonight. That is that I will not be able to see through the reform to the federal judiciary, which had also been a major project. Late last year the heads of jurisdiction of the three federal trial courts—the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court—agreed in principle upon a proposal for the fundamental restructuring of the federal judiciary, which would have seen a significant reduction in costs and waiting times, in particular in family law matters. It is the one large item of unfinished business I leave behind. But unfinished business is the lot of all attorneys-general who embark upon significant law reform. For instance, a large amount of the time and intellectual energy that was invested by Sir Garfield Barwick in his years as Attorney was devoted to legislation to deal with monopolies and cartels, but when he departed for the greener pastures of the High Court in 1964 it was left to his successor, Billy Snedden, to introduce the Trade Practices Act 1965. I trust that the reform of the federal judiciary will be carried forward by my successor, Christian Porter.
I have been fortunate in my mentors. Over the years a number of people took an interest in me and encouraged me. When I was a student I met and was befriended by Sir John Kerr, who encouraged me to pursue a career in politics. He was important in giving me the confidence, when I was young, to believe that I could do it; I want to conjure the treasured memory of that great Australian tonight. For most of my adult life, Canon John Morgan has given me much-needed spiritual guidance. Ever since I took over as the shadow Attorney-General in December 2007, I have had the benefit of the tutelage of the Hon. Philip Ruddock, who could not have been more generous in his guidance and advice. I'm honoured that both John and Philip have taken the trouble to be present this evening.
I have been fortunate in my opponents. For most of the time I was the shadow Attorney-General, Robert McClelland was the Attorney. He was a very good Attorney-General and we got on well. We would meet regularly, establish what we could agree on and identify the areas of difference, and then go out and have the argument. When he made his valedictory speech, Robert, now Justice McClelland, spent more time saying generous things about me than about any of his Labor colleagues—admittedly, it was a difficult time for the Labor Party—and I am honoured that he has come to my valedictory speech this evening. Nicola Roxon and I were ideological opposites, but she was always the soul of courtesy. Then, throughout my time as the Attorney-General, my opponent was Mark Dreyfus QC. This was also a stroke of good fortune. There were a couple of controversies over the last 4½ years, but I could always rely on the member for Isaacs to get me out of trouble. I will be forever grateful that Mark Dreyfus was my shadow. One of the many reasons that I'm cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the next federal election is that I believe the Leader of the Opposition is quite close to Mr Dreyfus and often seeks his advice.
I have been fortunate in my colleagues. Many of my House of Representatives colleagues have been good enough to come tonight, for which I thank them. The Prime Minister has done me the honour of being here, as have many of those with whom I served in cabinet and other friends from the House of Representatives. I thank them.
I want to dwell for a moment, though, in particular, upon my Senate colleagues, whom it was my honour to lead for almost 2½ years. I want to start with you, Mr President. You are a good friend who has increasingly become something of a political soulmate. There is no member in the Liberal Party room today with a better and more thorough grasp of the Liberal Party's essential values, its philosophy, its culture and its history than you. That is only fitting, since you are the protege of the great David Kemp, Australia's greatest contemporary Liberal theorist. You are his legatee and, more than any other person I know in this place, you are the keeper of the Liberal flame.
May I acknowledge the Father of the Senate, Ian Macdonald. We have known one another in the Queensland Liberal Party for nearly 40 years. We were not always friends—had Ian not beaten me in a preselection in 1990, I'd be retiring tonight as the Father of the Senate—but, with the passage of time, we have become so. There is no better person to have on your side than Ian, particularly in a Senate committee. There have been many memorable moments, but the one I will always remember best was in October 2016 when Ian confronted the former Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson. Mr Gleeson may have been the polished Sydney silk and Senator Macdonald the knockabout North Queensland solicitor, but there was no doubt who had the forensic triumph that day. When, Ian, your cross-examination exposed Mr Gleeson's secret conservations with the opposition, concealed from the government, his client, concerning matters to which an obligation of professional confidence plainly attached—that was the end of that. We may say of your cross-examination: it wasn't pretty, but it was pretty effective.
Allow me to congratulate the new Senate leadership. I am not going to detain the Senate by seeking to resolve the conundrum that is often the subject of speculation around the corridors of this chamber: is Senator Cormann a man or a machine? He certainly has the finest qualities of both. The years when we comprised the Senate leadership team were happy ones which coincided—due in no small measure to Mathias of course—with the government's most successful legislative period in the Senate since the election of the coalition. Mathias, of course, will be just as effective as leader as he was as deputy.
I want to congratulate Senator Fifield on his succession to the deputy leadership. A smoother, more suave political operator it would be hard to find.
And I want to congratulate my great friend Senator Birmingham, the new Manager of Government Business, who will be such an asset to the government's leadership group. It wasn't long after Senator Birmingham became a senator—a callow youth of 32, the youngest person in the Senate at the time—that people began drawing comparisons between him and the Liberal Party's longest-serving Senate leader, Robert Hill. With many years, indeed decades, on your side, I expect, Birmo, that in the long run, when others have departed the scene, the future of the Liberal Party in the Senate will rest upon your slender shoulders.
To my other ministerial colleagues. Marise, my oldest friend in the Senate—no, you're not that old, but you're my oldest friend in the Senate—I remember the days when, in the Howard government party room, you were sometimes the lone dissenting voice, usually on issues of human rights. At that time you were about as far away from ministerial preferment as it is possible to be. Yet you were never deterred, speaking truth to power. It gives me so much pride to see you now, Australia's first female Minister for Defence.
Michaelia—the one thing I will miss about parliament is question time, which has been nothing but pure fun. I'm sorry, Senator Wong. The thing I will miss most about question time, Michaelia, is you. Your performances are simply spectacular—stylish, fearless and lethal. Yet I know that, behind that steely exterior, you have the softest, kindest heart of all. Connie—yet another fearless, formidable Liberal woman. Our friendship is proof that different philosophical views are no barrier.
To the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Nigel Scullion: we have been the best of mates, almost since the day you arrived, the oddest of odd couples. There might occasionally have been tensions between the Liberal Party and the National Party, but there have never been any tensions between us. Let me also congratulate Bridget McKenzie on becoming the Deputy Leader of the National Party. You have been a great colleague and will be brilliant in the role as was your predecessor, Fiona Nash.
And finally, Matthew Canavan—once again, proof that philosophical differences are no barrier to friendship. In fact Matt and I supported one another in our respective preselections in Queensland. I remember when you were first preselected. There was a gasp of incredulity in the Liberal Party room when the word filtered through: the new Queensland National Party senator was an economist from the Productivity Commission! It scarcely seemed possible. But your contribution in cabinet has been formidable, and, as one who stood by you during your difficult times last year, I know better than most that the old saying—the measure of a man is how he handles himself in adversity—applies in spades to you.
And, speaking of adversity, my only sadness tonight is that our greatly admired colleague Arthur Sinodinos cannot be with us. Arthur, too, has been a friend and guide to me at critical times. I know that all senators join me in wishing him a return to good health and in hoping that he will be able to return to the Senate before too long.
To all my other coalition Senate colleagues, you know that we have something in the Senate which our House of Representatives colleagues envy—not just collegiality but genuine friendship. That is rare in politics, and it was not always so. During the troubles of 2009, the Senate party room was bitterly divided, and those divisions took a long time to heal. But that was many years ago. In my time as leader, that spirit of real friendship has existed among the senators, which made my job such a pleasure and all our lives so much easier and richer.
On occasions such as this, there are so many people to thank, and I want to begin, of course, by thanking the people of Queensland who elected me to the Senate three times and the members of the Liberal Party and the Liberal National Party who preselected me—on two of those occasions, giving me the honour of leading the Senate ticket. Con Galtos, who is in the gallery tonight, was the president of the Liberal Party at the time I was first preselected and facilitated the democratic outcome. I owe him a debt of gratitude, as I do to two other state presidents: Mr Bob Carroll and our former colleague Dr John Herron.
I want to thank the four leaders under whom I served for the opportunities they gave me: four very different men; all of them, in their very different ways, great Australians. John Howard put aside early misunderstandings to take me from the backbench and put me in his ministry. Brendan Nelson, than whom I have not encountered a more decent person in politics, promoted me into the shadow cabinet as shadow Attorney-General, a portfolio I held, through opposition and government, for over 10 years, which I think is a record. Tony Abbott brought me into the leadership group as deputy Senate leader and made me Attorney-General. Malcolm Turnbull reappointed me as Attorney-General twice and promoted me to the leadership of the government in the Senate. And now, of course, he has done me the honour of appointing me to the one position which I made no secret I hoped to fill after I left politics. Conducting the relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom in the coming years will be a task, I expect, every bit as challenging and satisfying as any I faced as Attorney-General. With the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union and looking to re-engage more closely with kindred nations like Australia, there has never been a time more rich with opportunity.
Finally, let me thank my staff. All of us know how important our staff are to us. We spend so much time together, mostly away from home, we share so many experiences, that they become like a second family. Over nearly two decades, I have had relatively few changes in my staff. The Brandis office was well known to be a very happy place, and people never seemed to want to leave. And so tonight is really about them, and I'm immensely flattered that so many of the people I'm about to mention have travelled to Canberra to be here. Let me mention and thank Maureen Nagle, my first secretary; the late Bob Harper, my first office manager; Ross Vasta; Peter Catanzariti; Andrew Nguyen; Verity Barton; Brad Burden; Alison Kubler; Luke Walker; Nick O'Connor; Rohan Watt; Harriet Bateman; Lexi Sekuless; Bruce Lehrmann; Melissa Lam; Maggie Forrest; and Benjamin Nance.
As a minister I was served by four chiefs of staff, all of whom are here. Zoe McKenzie was my first chief of staff. She is a dear friend who decided to take me in hand, as the Howard government's newest and most unexpected minister, some 11 years ago. Initially, I wasn't quite sure who was the boss, but I soon worked that out. It was Zoe. When the Abbott government was elected, I had the great good fortune to be joined by Paul O'Sullivan, a former Director-General of ASIO and a member of a brilliant generation of Australian diplomats, who lent wisdom, gravitas and good humour to the office. He was succeeded by James Lambie. James was, for many years, in opposition and government, the soul of the office and one of the most popular people in the building, with his unique blend of uncommon erudition, happy cynicism, wicked humour and spectacular political incorrectness. Every day, he put us in a good mood. He was succeeded by Liam Brennan.
For almost three years, my deputy chief of staff was Josh Faulks. He came with the experience of having worked for two attorneys-general, Daryl Williams and Philip Ruddock. Josh brought to the office professionalism and energy in equal measure. Sometimes, it seemed to me that he lived life at a faster speed than anyone I knew. He was a wise counsellor and a very good friend.
The advisers who served me as a minister were, every one of them, people of the very highest quality. Dr Donald Markwell, a former Fellow of New College, Trinity College and Merton College, Oxford, and a former Warden of Rhodes House, is a constitutional scholar of international reputation. Of the many contributions he made to my office, none was more important than his meticulous preparation of the papers for the prorogation of the parliament and the advice to His Excellency the Governor-General on the double dissolution of 2016. The government was immensely fortunate to have him in its service. There is literally nobody in Australia with a more thorough, scholarly knowledge of the constitutional precedents.
Dr Susan Cochrane also brought to the office great erudition in her particular field, family law. All of the significant reforms to family law during the Abbott and Turnbull governments were directly the result of her work. She played a crucial role in the preparation of the exposure draft of the marriage equality legislation, which evolved into the bill introduced by Senator Dean Smith. And—I know this is an issue about which she feels very deeply—she was the key to the Commonwealth's submissions in the Kelvin case on gender dysphoria, which reversed the Family Court's decision in Re Jamie.
Justin Bassi, David Mason and Tim Roy served as national security advisers. They drove the comprehensive reforms to national security law of which I have spoken, and which are landmark achievements of the Abbott and Turnbull governments. Michael Napthali was a prince among arts advisers, while Jason Costigan, now a member of the Queensland parliament, added even further to my knowledge of sport.
I had the good fortune to be served by brilliant young lawyers—Daniel Ward, Jules Moxon and Sarida Macleod. Tom Fardoulys proved to be a brilliant speechwriter. I discovered in Tom the only person who could ever capture my tone of voice. The years 2016 and 2017 saw an unusually high death rate among former senators. Many of the most eloquent condolence speeches ever delivered in this place came from Tom's elegant pen. If all else fails, he has a brilliant career ahead of him as a professional obituarist. When ministerial duties kept me away from Queensland, Nina Schrinner nurtured the grassroots of the party with tender loving care—there is no more important task in a senator's office. Tanya Morgan, and then Martine Whitton, managed my program and did their best to manage my life.
My media team—Scott Bolitho, Gabriel Young, Rachelle Miller and Michelle Perks—performed their jobs with great skill. They also staunchly resisted frequent entreaties by one or two journalists to engage in transactional journalism: cabinet leaks or classified national security information in exchange for favourable coverage in the tabloids. I am reminded of Lyndon Johnson's advice to Richard Nixon about leaks from America's National Security Council:
Read the columnists, and if they call [somebody] thoughtful, dedicated, or any other friendly adjective, fire him immediately. He is your leaker.
We have seen a bit of that recently, but it never happened in my office—a fact that would be obvious to readers of The Daily Telegraph. So I thank my media team not just for their professionalism but for their integrity as well. I also want to thank my many DLOs. It says something for the spirit of the office that almost all of them are here tonight.
And, lastly, I want to acknowledge a particularly deep debt of gratitude to the two longest-serving members of my staff: Travis Bell and Liam Brennan. Travis joined me not long after I became a senator in 2000 and worked for me for almost 13 years. In my years on the backbench, we travelled the highways and byways of Queensland with the Liberal Senate team and in 2004 ran the campaign that elected Russell Trood and gave the Howard government its Senate majority. Travis was then my media adviser in the Howard government and through the six long years of opposition. Liam joined me in the most junior position in my office in our first year in opposition, when he was barely out of secondary school, and has been with me ever since. Through a combination of hard work, shrewd political judgement and precocious ability, he rose over the course of nine years to become last year the government's youngest chief of staff—and one of the best.
Through all the twists and turns on the long, winding road of politics, on the good days and the bad days, from early in the morning until late into the night, Travis and then Liam were there for me: to advise, to encourage, to caution, to scold, to sustain; to be exasperated, to be proud; to share the dramas and rejoice in the victories. Nobody has been blessed with more loyal counsellors. I recall the words of WB Yeats:
Think where man's glory most begins and ends,
And say my glory was I had such friends.
And so now, as I close this, the longest chapter of my life, I leave as I arrived: an unapologetic, committed liberal, a little bloodied perhaps but nevertheless unbowed. So farewell to you all. I thank you for the memories. I thank those who gave me the opportunity to make whatever contributions I have been able to make to Australia. And, most of all, I thank all of those who have shared the journey with me.
It is my great privilege to rise to pay tribute to our dear friend and colleague—to my dear friend and colleague—Senator George Brandis. Senator Brandis and I have had the pleasure of working very closely with each other, both in opposition and in government, for many years now. I never thought that the question of man or machine was on his mind—I'm happy to explore that further with him later tonight over a drink!
Over the period of working closely with each other we have achieved many successes together. We have debated policy, talked politics and enjoyed each other's company over the occasional glass of red—the latter, it must be said, more often in opposition than in government. It was perhaps counterintuitively, after I lost what was most probably an inappropriate decision back in 2010 to contest the deputy leadership of the Liberal Party in the Senate against him, that George and I started to develop a very close personal and professional relationship. I think that we respected in each other the way we engaged in that contest, and, as I said, we very much enjoyed each other's company as we discussed policy and politics in the months and years that followed.
In the broad church which is the Liberal Party, George is a leading representative of the classical liberal tradition. I have heard him describe himself as a Deakinite. It won't surprise colleagues to hear me say that I approach policy and politics from a more conservative point of view, so there was always much scope for discussion about all sorts of policy and political issues—but always conducted with good humour and in a spirit of friendship. For that, I thank you, George.
It is often taken for granted when we hear someone say that politics, at its core, is a battle of ideas, but few have engaged more vigorously in the genuine battle of political ideas than Senator Brandis. From his student days to the high public office of Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis has always brought incredible intellect, conviction, energy and well-considered philosophical principle to his engagement in the battle of political ideas. Senator Brandis has represented the great state of Queensland in this chamber for nearly 18 years—eight years as part of the coalition leadership group. Ten of those years were in the Attorney-General's portfolio, firstly for six years in opposition and then, since the election of the coalition government in 2013, as the Commonwealth Attorney-General. By any measure, that is an incredible achievement.
His political career started all the way back, as he has alluded to, at the tender age of 16, when he made the very wise decision to join the Liberal Party. At the University of Queensland he attained first-class honours in both Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Law degrees. He was awarded the distinguished Sir Rupert Cross Prize for evidence. And his arts honours thesis, believe it or not, was modestly titled 'An Interpretation of the Ideology of the Liberal Party of Australia'. With a title like that for an arts honours thesis, it should have been obvious to all what was to come: an outstanding, distinguished career of public service, culminating in his becoming one of the most senior and most respected leaders in Australian politics.
But first, before pursuing his political career, Senator Brandis went on to study a Bachelor of Civil Law from Magdalen College at Oxford in 1983, joining a pool of alumni that includes many other distinguished current and former Australian public servants and members of the bar. Upon his return to Australia, Senator Brandis pursued a legal career with distinction. After a brief time as a solicitor in Brisbane he was called to the Queensland bar in 1985 and was involved in a series of significant cases before both the Federal and High Courts of Australia. Senator Brandis's years of eminent service would later see him appointed as Senior Counsel. I note that Senator Brandis, with the power vested in him as the Attorney-General, was able to change this to Queen's Counsel in 2013, an obvious reflection of his love of the English common law tradition, even in titles.
Senator Brandis entered the Senate, filling a casual vacancy, back in May of 2000. After a number of years of then Prime Minister John Howard carefully reviewing his performance, he was appointed to what all thought was the most suitable position in the ministry that he could be appointed to, his dream job: the Minister for the Arts and Sport.
By some analysis, considering his contribution as the Australian minister for sports on a time-served-to-impact ratio, there's no doubt in my mind that Senator Brandis was one of Australia's greatest sports ministers. In his mere 10 months in the portfolio in 2007 he worked with the Australian Football League and other codes to introduce what are now the world's most rigorous standards regarding the use of illicit drugs in professional sport. In his first successful foray on the global stage, George outsmarted the world's national sports bodies to get the first Australian appointed as president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the Hon. John Fahey, an illustrious former finance minister of this parliament. And they say that the training we receive doing the numbers in the Liberal Party doesn't serve any purpose!
In the arts portfolio, no doubt Senator Brandis's greatest passion, he again made an outstanding contribution. In a short 10 months in 2007, he successfully shepherded a series of major reforms through the budget and the parliament to expand Australia's vibrant screen industry. He created our national agency, Screen Australia, and secured the sustainability of local production, including documentary and domestic filmmaking. When he returned to the arts portfolio in 2013 he took steps to make arts funding more readily available to the community arts sector and ensured new players were able to access funding to tour overseas, demonstrating the breadth of excellence in the Australian arts sector. His passion exceeded the boundaries of the portfolio. In 2015, after he had left the arts portfolio, he followed the Australian World Orchestra to Chennai on his own initiative and at his own cost to observe and celebrate their tour de force, led by maestro Zubin Mehta. He has been an avid proponent of Australian art and culture across the globe, a passion I am confident he will continue to pursue during his next endeavours in London.
Turning to his remarkable contribution as Attorney-General, I wish to pay foremost tribute to his tireless commitment to the safety of the Australian people. In the face of a deteriorating global security environment and the advent of a new generation of terror threats, Senator Brandis marshalled the full weight of his legal and political expertise and stewarded world-leading antiterrorism laws that have given the men and women of our intelligence and police communities the statutory tools that they need to carry out their vital work. Much of his most important work on security issues has been outside of the public eye, ranging across challenges like Operation Sovereign Borders; fallout from the conflict in Iraq and Syria; the rise of ISIL, including their surrogates in the Philippines; terrorist cells and lone wolves in Australia; and humanitarian crises in South-East Asia. In the three years since Australia's terror threat level was elevated, Senator Brandis has overseen the passage of nine tranches of national security laws—four of these in the last year alone. Thanks to these laws our police and security agencies are better placed to keep Australia safe. Australia has been very well served by having as Attorney-General a thinker steeped in the classical liberal tradition at a time when the right balance had to be struck in modernising antiterrorism laws and administrative arrangements to fight terror.
In his first speech in this place Senator Brandis cited as the most fundamental duty of government 'the obligation to protect the weak from the strong'. Be it via the measures that Senator Brandis helped pass that prevented the return of foreign terror fighters or the new anti-espionage and foreign interference reforms that he helped to craft in the closing weeks of last year, it is clear that this concern has remained front of mind throughout the course of his service. Because of Senator Brandis's efforts, the Australian people are today safer and more secure.
Senator Brandis has also played a particularly important role in national debates on data retention laws, family law reform and the reform of the court system at a time of constrained resources. Further, he has been influential over several years in the debate on the shape of potential reforms to marriage laws. I also wish to emphasise Senator Brandis's staunch advocacy for the protection of constitutional government and those liberties that underpin all others: freedom of thought, speech and expression. This, too, was central to the agenda that he outlined upon his entry into the Senate, and Senator Brandis's willingness to champion these causes should not be forgotten. As chief law officer of the Commonwealth, Senator Brandis has also been passionate about his core responsibilities for stewardship of the justice system, including recruiting the best minds to our highest courts and maintaining important laws for the administration of justice, family law, freedom of information, and bankruptcy.
It is in the role of Attorney-General, and also of Leader of the Government in the Senate, that we have best seen his raw and determined devotion to the principles of justice, fairness and liberalism. In recent times Senator Brandis's great oratory in this place at times of pressure and stress, whether relating to same-sex marriage or to equal opportunity and antidiscrimination, has made us as colleagues and legislators and the listening public stop and consider the full impact of our deliberations and decisions.
Senator Brandis's great grace and high principles are celebrated today by those of us in this place but also by the more than 90 of George's family, friends and former staff who have come from all over Australia to be in the gallery for this occasion. His staff have served him with loyalty and good humour, and Senator Brandis has touched on this in his remarks. They have felt part of George's family and his purpose in this place. He enjoys their friendship, which is not always a given in Australian politics. In fact, I spoke to one of the seasoned coalition staffers who have worked for a number of coalition ministers over the years about whether George might have been the best minister that particular staffer had worked for. She replied, 'Well, it depends on what you mean by 'best minister'. Was he the most intelligent, the most effective politician, the most capable legislator, the most dedicated team player, the most deft cabinet contributor?' She replied, 'He was all of those things but, above all, if I had to be stuck on island with one of you,'—that is, one of us—'George is the one I would take, for his good stories and great company, ideally over a bottle of champagne or an endless gin and tonic.' It is up to you to guess who I may have spoken to.
George will be missed greatly by all of us in this place. We will miss his brilliance, his wit and, above all, his great stories and his laughter, which on a good day can be heard from one end of this chamber to the end of the other place. I certainly was able to hear it from time to time in the office next door. As I observed earlier, Senator Brandis has been an insightful proponent throughout his life on the topic of political liberalism. I would not be surprised if over the years ahead we find he has a few more books on it still in him. I've got a few spots left in a bookshelf in my office! It is fair to say that with his departure, this place will come to miss that extra degree of intellectual depth.
George, over the past nearly 18 years as a senator, with five years as a minister—over three governments, as you said—you have made a remarkable contribution to the life of the Senate and Australia at large. Your contribution, George, to public life has been marked by a strength of belief, passion and consistency. It has been a real privilege to work with you in recent years, not only as your deputy leader in the Senate and a fellow minister but as a valued friend and colleague. However, your service is not over. The diplomatic post of High Commissioner to the United Kingdom is one of the most consequential that any Australian can occupy. Many of your predecessors remain some of our nation's most distinguished diplomats, and I have no doubt that you will pursue your new role with the same energy, intellect and love of country that has informed your time in this place. In these uncertain times, it is so valuable to both Australia and the United Kingdom that Senator George Brandis will be bringing his experience and talents to bear as a linchpin in the relationship between our two countries. We wish you, George, and your family all the best for your future endeavours and we thank you for your many years of service.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the valedictory of Senator the Hon. George Brandis, who has been a leader in this place for many years, serving as a senator for the best part of two decades since arriving to fill a casual vacancy in 2000. He's been a minister in two governments under—I thought it was three—four prime ministers. He has variously been a political warrior, sometimes hatchet man, a pedantic grammarian—I did so enjoy his corrections; at least he was ecumenical about it, so we all got it—but also, on important occasions, an extraordinarily eloquent advocate for liberalism and democracy. We saw this again today in the exposition in his valedictory of the philosophical foundations of liberalism and the importance of the institutions that safeguard our democracy. That's why it's sometimes interesting to be an opponent of Senator Brandis, because he does and says so many things with which you vehemently disagree. Occasionally, he is what we regard as unnecessarily personal, but then he'll say something extraordinarily important and eloquent with which we vehemently agree.
Born in Sydney—were you born in Sydney, George? There you go!—he recalled in an interview in 2005 that he first became interested in politics at the age of 14. He was educated by the Augustinians, I'm told, and so joins Martin Luther as a distinguished alumnus of their religious tradition. He joined the Young Liberals at 16—did you not have any fun?—and he found it was a good way to understand how the Liberal Party worked and to learn basic political skills and techniques. He became president of the Young Liberals in '81 and of course was a distinguished scholar both at the University of Queensland and while doing a Bachelor of Civil Law at Oxford, subsequently practising as a barrister and solicitor. He nurtured his academic interest in liberalism, authoring Liberals face the future: essays on Australian liberalism in 1984 with Tom Harley—who I think was in the gallery—and Don Markwell and Australian liberalism: the continuing visionwith Tom Harley again and Yvonne Thompson in 1986. As he outlined, following the election of the Abbott government in September 2013, George Brandis became the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth, and after Mr Turnbull assumed the prime ministership he was promoted to be my opposite, the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
I want to first turn very briefly to bills concerning national security. The former Attorney Senator Brandis has rightly outlined that the passage of the various tranches of legislation in this area has led to an increased range of powers to prosecute and arrest foreign fighters, the disruption of money-laundering and terrorist-financing operations and increases in a range of the powers of Australia's intelligence agencies. I want to emphasise the extent to which legislation that the Attorney either introduced or spoke to in this place was supported on a bipartisan basis, and I want to acknowledge and thank him for his contribution today where he emphasised the importance of not, for political and partisan purposes, confecting a dispute with the opposition on these matters.
It is one of those few occasions where perceived short-term tactical advantage has been superseded by what I regard as a very important national interest consideration, as he outlined far more eloquently in his valedictory today.
Other actions taken by Senator Brandis included tasking the ALRC with reviews both of Commonwealth laws for their consistency with traditional rights, freedoms and privileges and of the family law system. And of course last year he supported the amendment of the Marriage Act to remove discrimination against couples of the same gender.
During his time as Attorney, as Senator Brandis pointed out, he has been responsible for quite a remarkable number of appointments, many of which have been supported across the political spectrum. These include the appointment of the new Chief Justice—the High Court of Australia's first female chief—three other High Court justices, Chief Justice Pascoe of the Family Court, a new Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court and numerous other judicial administrative appointments.
Obviously, one of the difficult periods of his time as Attorney-General concerned the breakdown of the relationship between the government and the President of the Human Rights Commission, and one wonders if they were both able to press the rewind button whether both Senator Brandis and Professor Triggs might have conducted that drama somewhat differently. Similarly, there was controversy surrounding the directions to the Solicitor-General.
I thought today, in his valedictory, the former Attorney-General articulated with great clarity the centrality to our democracy of the rule of law and of the institutions that safeguard those principles. And those are views which we perhaps don't hear often enough in this place.
Senator Brandis also served as Minister for the Arts from 2013 to 2015. He is certainly remembered for his championing of Australia's major performing arts companies. Although his approach wasn't universally applauded, it did generate some confronting artwork—some of which I've only recently become aware of, to be honest.
As Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis inherited a Senate of some challenging configuration from Senator Abetz, something that continued after the 2016 election. He also took carriage of the largest number of referrals to the Court of Disputed Returns under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the history of that provision.
I would say management of the Senate does require a large amount of work from many people, and my office always found dealings with his office to be courteous and cooperative. Of course, the friendship was tested a little when they called, as the bells were ringing for the commencement of the day one morning, to advise that he was going to move a motion of censure against me, which I'm pleased to note he lost.
As I noted at the end of last year, while Senator Brandis and I had a pretty competitive relationship across the table, I acknowledge and recognise the intellectual and personal qualities he brought to his roles both as Leader of the Government in the Senate and as Attorney-General. I again compliment him sincerely for two of the most moving, heartfelt and important speeches in recent months that it has been my privilege to hear. Respect for the freedom of all Australians to practise whatever religion they wish to adhere to and the right of people of the same sex to marry speak to the kind of Australia we are. That is something that Senator Brandis has reflected in his life and in the offices he has held.
Obviously, we didn't agree with Senator George Brandis on everything, but he has been prepared to advance liberal values. He has stood up against marginalisation of people based on religion at critical times in our national debate, and I do believe the cabinet will be poorer for the loss of his contribution, input and, most of all, his intellect.
In closing, I return to what he said in his first speech:
We do well to remind ourselves from time to time that, as the Prime Minister once famously said, the things which unite us as Australians will always be more important than the things that divide us.
So I wish Senator Brandis well for the next chapter in his life and, on behalf of the opposition, bid him farewell from the Senate.
There's precious left for me to say, so I'll be brief. Let me start by saying: Senator Brandis, you have left an enormous mark on this chamber. We have mostly sat on opposite sides of the chamber, but there were several occasions where we sat on the same side. Indeed, there was that moment in September where, if somebody had told me at the start of the week that by the end of the week I would be standing up, giving a standing ovation to a speech that you'd given, I would have thought they were stark raving bonkers, but it was, I think, a moment of moral clarity. It was spontaneous. It was heartfelt. I assume it was difficult, because I'm sure those views weren't shared by all members of your own party, but it was a moment that meant a lot not just to those of us in this chamber but to people right across the country. I want to thank you for your leadership in that moment when a member of this place came in wearing a religious garment in an effort to offend so many people who are part of the Australian community. You chose to call that out, and I want to thank you for doing that.
Equally, on marriage equality, you again, despite some recalcitrance from members of your own side, worked very hard behind the scenes, and it was your contribution that ensured the final passage of the marriage equality bill. It was your exposure draft that served as the template for the Senate select committee's inquiry out of which emerged Senator Smith's bill. People may not know that, but your contribution right through that process, and particularly early on, was critical to the passage of that legislation, and I think you need to be acknowledged for that. Again, on behalf of the Greens, we thank you for that.
I must say I did take some joy in taking on one of the most pedantic people in this chamber by correcting you on the pronunciation of my surname! Perhaps we can take it a step further: it is actually Di Nataleh, which is a little closer to what I indicated.
That's what I was trying to say!
I know you were trying. You failed, but at least you know now!
Let me wish you well in London. Some people might unkindly say that you can now be at the helm of a London bus rather than a blunderbuss, but I would never say that! I figured, given the roasting of your opposition counterpart, you deserve one in return. I might also say to the embassy not to take your advice on matters constitutional given your role in the dual citizenship saga—but I wouldn't say that either!
Let me hope that you find joy in your coming endeavours. I think you're well suited to the role. I'm sure that they've found a beast as big as you to fill the spot. They'll be pleased with that. I know you get that reference. And I can only hope that the high commissioner's residence has a shelf large enough for your extensive collection of books and periodicals—or maybe DFAT might have a budget big enough to build you one!
Senator Brandis, all the best. You've been a big and imposing figure in this place. I wish you well in the future.
As the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I also rise to honour Senator George Brandis for his almost two decades of exceptional service to this place and of course as senator for Queensland. I'd also like to express that I unreservedly concur with the sentiments that were conveyed prior to mine. I will try to keep these as brief as I can; I know there are a number of other colleagues who'd like to make a contribution.
Senator Brandis, you and I have been colleagues for a very long time. You were elected in the year 2000 on a casual vacancy for the Liberal Party and I just over a year later for the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory. On top of working together for many years in the Senate, we've served as ministers together in several terms of government in the Howard years, the Abbott years and now the Turnbull government. In those unmentionable opposition years in between, we found ourselves on the front bench of the other side, keeping the government of the day to account as shadow ministers. Throughout it all I've always valued your advice and support as a colleague and as a mate.
It might come as a bit of a surprise to many that I as a fisherman and buffalo shooter from the Northern Territory and you as a lawyer and erudite statesman from Brisbane became such close mates, but you have been a great friend and someone who shares many of the same interests and passions as I do. Although hailing from opposite ends of the country and certainly from such different backgrounds, we continuously work hard towards the same goals for this country, and I think we're living examples of the broad church that is in fact the Liberal-National coalition.
On a personal note, I'd like to tell some stories of our time together, but I think that tales of sharing adventures of pig shooting with our children and that sort of thing are probably best left until we are out of this place! I say that also because I think many Australians may not actually understand who I think the real George Brandis is—the George Brandis that I know. I will relate a trip where the cabinet went to the Torres Strait. I remember leaving Thursday Island and going to the mainland for some work. There were ministers in a boat and, as things do on a sea trip, it got a bit left-handed and there was a bit of spray. You could see most of the ministers and the staffers cowering on the floor, wondering where this was all going to end. George didn't have his shirt off, but he was leaning out and just loving it! And there are so many parts of this man that you don't see when you see the man in the suit, so erudite and statesmanlike.
George, your contribution to parliamentary debate has been—words fail me! During the time I've been here, I've heard the way you're able to put your point forward: you are just such an incredibly good speaker. There is the way you've been involved in the development of every element of such important legislation that affects the freedom and fairness of Australian society. You've been such a valued member of the coalition, and you've shown us time and time again on both sides the importance of our right to speak our minds freely and to fight for what we believe in.
So I don't think anyone in this place would deny that you've been one of the most enthusiastic and somewhat colourful senators to grace the floors of this parliament. As the tenacious Leader of the Government in the Senate, you furiously and articulately rebutted those on the other side countless times. In those long nights that we all know well, debating until the early hours of the morning, you've displayed mighty endurance in the face, quite often, of absurdity about the time we were there. But you always spent time encouraging your colleagues to push on, to stick with it and to get the job done.
In your time as Attorney you fought boldly for issues that preserve the liberties of the Australian people and uphold the justice of our society. That was not without the occasional consequence, which, as I said, you dealt with absolutely head-on. In particular, I think that last year many Australians saw the true George Brandis—again, just a fair and compassionate man who is prepared to stand up immediately for values that make this country the great nation that it is. Your speech in response to the presentation of someone in a burqa in this place captured national attention and made us all proud to serve in this place, and your advocacy and your passion for same-sex marriage is part of your legacy in this place. There was also your approach to native title reforms last year and your engagement with me and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians on these very important issues of native title reforms that strengthen the rights of traditional owners to make decisions about the use of their land.
I'd like to finish by thanking you for working so hard for this government and for the betterment of Australia. We certainly need more courageous members and senators like Senator Brandis, who, when faced with opposition to what was clearly right, worked even harder to achieve the outcomes that we sought. George, it's safe to say that you'll be leaving a legacy of many things, but I think of your style of audacity and of zeal. Your absence will certainly be felt by those on this side of the chamber; we will miss your passion in debates.
I congratulate you on this new position and we wish you well in this new tenure. I'm looking forward very much to catching up in London. I want you to keep fighting for the things that you believe in, mate.
I rise to make a short contribution to the chorus of congratulatory comments acknowledging Senator Brandis's time in public life.
My experience of Senator Brandis has only been during this 45th Parliament. There have, as others have mentioned, actually been two significant moments during this parliament where I was pleased to see Senator Brandis rise above, to use his own words, the 'tawdry, day-to-day politics' and the 'ephemera' of debates about the economy and political intrigues and instead show the courage and conviction of his strongly-held liberal views. Senator Brandis, your thundering rebuke of Senator Hanson over the burqa stunt revealed in an unscripted moment your most authentic self. It was not only a moment of fine moral clarity but also demonstrated your compassion, intelligence and true liberal ideals.
That impassioned speech will forever be part of your legacy—and many speakers here tonight have mentioned that as well. You earned a standing ovation from your political opponents on that occasion and with good cause. It will live as a moment, frozen in time, when the Senate stood up against bigotry, stood up against ignorance and stood with you.
You've always been a fearless champion and defender of free speech. In your first speech to this chamber, you said, quoting John Stuart Mill:
… that a liberal society is only worthy of the name if its citizens enjoy an absolute right to hold, and to express, opinions which other members of society find outrageous. Any attempt to limit that right … is a fundamental violation of a free society.
You assured the chamber that as long as you sat in this place you would defend the absolute right of all citizens to the free expression of their opinions, no matter how unfashionable, ignorant or offensive those opinions may seem to others. That moment following Senator Hanson's stunt in the chamber exemplified your steadfast belief in free speech and, similarly, the right to challenge such comments and motivations for being ignorant and offensive.
I also thank you for your instrumental facilitation of cooperation between the government and former senators Xenophon and Kakoschke-Moore to ensure that Carly's Law could finally be realised. I have no doubt that Australian children are safer following the passage of Carly's Law. In August 2017, as you would be aware, a convicted paedophile in South Australia was the first person ever to be charged with an offence under Carly's Law—and that was only weeks after the bill's passage. If you had not taken a genuine interest to ensure the policy intent behind the Nick Xenophon Team's bill became law then there is no doubt it would have languished like so many other private senators' bills.
Finally, I thank you for your unwavering support of marriage equality and the critical support you provided to Senator Dean Smith during the deliberation on the bill. Your staunch support and authoritative voice ensured the bill was debated and ultimately passed in a respectful manner. On behalf of the Nick Xenophon Team, I wish you every success as the UK High Commissioner. It was a pleasure to have worked with you.
It is with happiness for George and a tinge of sadness for those of us who are his friends that we farewell Senator George Brandis from the Senate today. George is a friend, a colleague, a leader and reformer, an advocate and statesman, a wise counsel, mentor and confidante—and also, very importantly, as Senator Cormann reflected upon, a leading contributor to liberal thinking and liberal ideology. Indeed, for more than 40 years of George's 60 years of happy and fruitful life, thus far, he has distinguished himself for speaking up and speaking with greater depth, clarity, knowledge and perspective of liberalism and what it means in the Australian context than barely anybody else I can think of.
George is a student of Gladstone and Deacon and of Menzies and Isaiah Berlin, all of whom he referenced variously in his works and speeches, including his first speech. I suspect that George has somewhat enjoyed the renaissance that Deacon has recently enjoyed, thanks to the works of the likes of Judith Brent—a body of work that, perhaps, George himself may add to later in his career. This dates all the way back, as Senator Cormann acknowledged, to the publication of Liberals face the future: essays on Australian liberalism in 1984, which George co-authored with Tom Harley, who is in the gallery today, and Don Markwell, who I note has returned to the advisers box to my left. In co-authoring that, they outlined a defining version of liberalism that I know George continued with throughout his career, both pre parliament and during his time in parliament and, I've got no doubt, in his post parliamentary life.
They rightly defined liberalism's most fundamental concern as being with the dignity and fulfilment of the individual, and that from this flows other objectives—individual freedom, parliamentary democracy, free enterprise growth, decentralisation of political power, low taxation, equality of opportunity, and a safety net of social security.
Importantly, they also defined liberalism not as a laissez-faire philosophy but as an active one in which individuals acting rationally and with cooperative goodwill can consciously shape the future of their societies so as to avoid the errors of the past and correct the injustices of the present. They went so far as to say that, just as the liberal's position will be relatively conservative where the status quo largely embodies liberal value, so may his beliefs dictate radical change where that is necessary to displace the status quo that is illiberal.
Those thoughts in 1984 were followed by Australian Liberalism, The Continuing Vision, which Senator Brandis co-edited in 1986, and other contributions, which eventually, after some trials and tribulations of preselection processes, led to a first speech delivered in this chamber in the year 2000. At that time, George rightly defined liberalism in a generous way. He noted that it is only in a society based upon equality of opportunity that the fruits of liberty can be enjoyed by all. As was noted at the commencement of his valedictory speech tonight, the theme of consistency that was tagged by others—and indeed in some ways dogged George for part of his time as Attorney-General—is best epitomised by the statement given in his first speech:
For as long as I sit in this place I will defend the absolute right of all citizens to the free expression of their opinions—no matter how unfashionable, ignorant or offensive those opinions may seem to others.
I suspect George may wish that he'd given that less quote-worthy version of that sentiment during an answer in question time one day.
It was with that, though, that also Senator Brandis outlined a very important perspective that political power is a dangerous elixir for some. And he brought that knowledge and perspective to the role of Attorney-General. As the protector of the rule of law, the first law officer of the land, and, indeed, in his work on national security and foreign intelligence reforms, bringing that understanding of liberal values meant that George was the right person at the right place at the right time to be able to reconcile the best instincts and understanding of John Stuart Mill's thesis that the only purpose for which power ought be rightly exercised over individuals is to prevent harm to others. I know, from having witnessed it in the party room, the cabinet, the parliament, in private and in public, that George was always mindful of the need, when undertaking law reform and particularly in the challenging area of national security law reform, to keep those principles in perspective.
I noted in doing some research for this speech that back in that 1984 work there was also an interesting statement that Liberals should stress policies of liberal reformism, for example in law reform. The advice was given—in what were then to be the early years of a long wilderness stage of opposition for the party—that the Liberal Party had too often missed those opportunities for marginal change to the status quo for which liberal values cried out, and which offered the prospect of greater popular support; for example, among the young. In reading that, I couldn't help but reflect upon the many conversations that we had about the marriage equality reform that so marked the end of George's time as Attorney-General. Those conversations were conducted again over many years with wise counsel and advice as to how best to see prospects of that debate proceed. I know how determined Senator Brandis was to ensure that it succeeded under his watch, under this government. It is to his lasting credit that that change did occur. In that debate and in those speeches, which many have denoted tonight, Senator Brandis rightly acknowledged that the passage of the same-sex marriage bill demolished the last significant bastion of legal discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality. After centuries of prejudice, discrimination, rejection and ridicule, it is both an expiation of past wrongs and a final act of acceptance and embrace.
It was also an act of great liberal law reform, the likes of which, indeed in your very earliest writings, you had called for the Liberal Party to play a leading role in delivering.
In general, of course, I think of George for many things: his unrivalled vocabulary, the occasions upon which I would walk into his office and feel much better about the untidiness of my office, and the camaraderie of his office. We heard him pay tribute to his staff tonight. Any of us who turned up to the Kingo on a Thursday night would see that it wasn't just George turning up for drinks with his colleagues, but, indeed, it was George celebrating the hard work of his team and congratulating and working with them regularly to celebrate their efforts and hard work.
I also know what a proud, but reserved, father Senator Brandis is. Of his son, Simon, who has followed him into the law, and his daughter, Phoebe, in medicine, he would speak quietly but with the enormous pride of a dad. I recall most recently standing in the corridor between the cabinet room and the Prime Minister's office when George told me with great pride and excitement that Phoebe was to receive the university medal for her work.
We will miss you, but we know that we will have great opportunity to stay in touch in a different way in your new role. I look forward to your contribution as high commissioner but I also look forward to what will come after, where I predict and am confident you will return to the roots of delving into liberalism, liberal thinking and its place in Australian society, in particular.
I look back on those words that you wrote in 1984 with Tom and Don and know that they continue very strongly in a number of ways. For those of us who continue in this place, a greater burden falls upon our shoulders, with your departure, to live up to some of those writings. I'll close with this quote from those works: 'This generation of Liberals must not only be vigilant to protect and preserve those liberal values that are already entrenched but also be no less resolute than our forebears in seeking to extend those values to new spheres. We should at the present time in the Liberal Party's development be concerned to insist that liberalism is very much a mix of individualistic and egalitarian rights.'
Thank you, George, for all you've contributed. Thank you for your friendship, and every success in the future.
I'm going to be sorry to see George go, but I do look forward to cheaper accommodation in London in the future! George, I join others in thanking you for your service to Australia, to Queensland, and particularly to the Liberal Party and to liberalism. I've often said publicly and privately that I've always had a sort of love-hate relationship with George, which George has sometimes been offended at—to think that there could be any part for hate. But the words 'love' and 'hate' are probably not accurate words. I have a great admiration for your intelligence, your intellect, your eloquence and, in the last few years, your genuine leadership in this place and elsewhere. Those things really make me admire you and all you've done.
On the other side, we have at times had our differences of opinion, particularly in the earlier days of the Liberal Party—it started off closely together and then faded for a little while and has come back. But it is tremendous to see you achieve everything that you've set out to achieve. I know there are many people waiting to speak to you more convivially after this, so I do want to be much briefer than I would perhaps like to be.
George has always exhibited qualities that I could never achieve and, in some cases, wouldn't want to achieve. There is his eloquence, his exquisiteness and his intellectual ability. He is ambitious, capable, gifted, clever and a genuine liberal.
Those qualities are the ones that I will remember George for. He was never really a man of the people. I mean, Campari and soda wasn't the drink of preference in the Longreach hotels. But George—as I think he told us in one preselection—actually came from the wrong side of the tracks and had a very humble beginning. So all of those qualities have come together to mean that, for me and many others, George is a person of quality who we will never forget.
I just want to briefly say that your work on reforming national security laws was fantastic. It is something that perhaps people won't really understand or recognise, apart from those involved in those areas. Indeed, every Australian who is safe as a result of your work will perhaps never recognise that. I had the honour of chairing the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee through George's time as leader and as Attorney-General and I saw a lot of the work that George actually did there, and a lot was never made terribly public.
I did, George, at times try to help you. You mentioned one particularly significant Senate inquiry that we were both involved in. There were others, as members of our opposition tried—unsuccessfully—time and time again to destroy you with different inquiries. But, as I knew you would, you sailed through them. I know that on all occasions you acted honourably and honestly. I did try to help there.
I also assisted you in your first ministry, George, as you might remember, when you were appointed sports minister. Although I knew that you didn't need a great deal of assistance with that, I was instrumental in encouraging you to take on Jason Costigan. There is nothing about sport that Jason doesn't know about, and I know he was of particular help to you, in his own inimitable way, in your very first ministry.
Others have spoken at greater length and far more eloquently than me about George. I, of course, endorse all of those sentiments. I genuinely will miss you, George, particularly in this chamber. I'll miss the confidence you gave all of us in a political crisis in this chamber. The way you dealt with many opposition attacks at question time was just a joy to hear. At times I'd almost pay money, for entertainment value, to come and see how you handled some of those. We will very much miss that.
Lesley asked to join me in wishing you well. We wish you all the very best in your future, and we certainly hope our paths will cross at some time in the future.
It's a great privilege to stand and make some brief remarks in honour of the service that Senator George Brandis gave to the state of Queensland. I was only in this chamber for a short period of George's career. As he outlined in his contribution, we don't always see eye-to-eye on fundamental issues, but I do have a great respect for his contribution to this place, his fine intellect and the public service he has given to the people of Queensland.
George mentioned that I was happy to support him getting another term, despite our potential differences. That was not only because I respect him as a person. There are a few other reasons why I thought it was important to continue to have George as part of our team. Prime among those is that it is important to have differences in our party. I think we are stronger as a unit to have a little bit of tension, if you like, at times. It makes you sharper. There's not much point in playing tennis on your own. When you have someone else to hit the ball back, you become a little bit stronger and a little bit better at your game. I also think, ultimately, a bird needs a left wing and a right wing to fly, and that's no different for our parties. George was a fine exponent of a set of values within our Liberal-National Party that deserved to have representation. I was very happy to see him re-chosen by the LNP earlier last year.
He was also, as Senator Macdonald pointed out, a great Leader of the Government in the Senate and also a great Attorney-General. We were very lucky to have him as a representative from Queensland. I tried to find out how many attorneys-general had come from Queensland. I gave up because it was too difficult, but I don't think there would be too many. I reckon, from my short dealings with the Sydney bar last year—which I might go into later—that they'd hold onto this position pretty tightly down there in Sydney or Melbourne. I don't think they'd give it to too many people north of the Tweed. The fact that George was able to rise to those levels was indicative of his skills and qualities, and we are very proud to have had him as a representative of our state.
I was already good mates with George before I decided to take a little sabbatical last year so that the Australian legal profession could expand their understanding of the Australian Constitution. George was the first person I let know that I potentially had an issue with my citizenship. When I found out, I was walking towards the CPO offices in Brisbane. I then called my wife. I think I called the PM and the Deputy PM, and then I called George. He happened to be in the offices as well, so he was probably the first person I spoke to face to face following that particular news. I can't thank him enough for the support that he and his staff gave to me—and, indeed, the whole government, as it turned out—through that difficult process.
Most of the barristers and high-level solicitors I spoke to about this issue were, I think, always struggling to hide their excitement about this particular problem. They all seemed very excited about having this particular constitutional conundrum to look at and investigate. It reminded me of the old saying that you don't want to be the patient where the doctors are very excited about the surgery they're going to conduct on you. That's how I felt sometimes. But George did keep his excitement in check and had a great degree of empathy and helped me a lot through it.
When we were first going through these issues, up in the CPO offices, we were, of course, desperately trying to find some intelligence about Italian law. We started calling legal people about our options, and our problem became pretty apparent very quickly in that all these lawyers in Australia who had some expertise about Italian migration law were all steeped in the experience of getting people to be Italian—people who wanted to be Italian! So we had to spend a lot of time explaining, 'No, no, I don't want to be Italian.' They knew all the loopholes for how to become an Italian but not many for how to get out of it!
It's okay. You could've asked me!
I should have asked you, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. You may have helped me more than George in that instance. But, as I said, he was a great help and of great assistance through that, and I owe a huge debt to you, George, and to others in our team. Thank you very much for the support you gave.
I also quickly want to mention all the support your staff gave to me as well. As you outlined in your speech, you probably had, I think, one of the more effective offices in the government. That is always, I think, a reflection of the person themselves. Staff and their attitude and their conduct to others ultimately do reflect the attitude and character of their boss. They're a credit to you, George. Jules Moxon, Daniel Ward, Don Markwell, who's here at the moment, Liam Brennan—I can't mention them all—are fantastic people who gave great service to this country and to the coalition.
Finally, it was always a great privilege to go into your office, Senator Brandis. I was always impressed by the eclectic titles you had your bookshelf. My only question is: surely you can't take all those books to London, and are you giving some of them away? All the best in your future career. It is not finished by any stretch. You gave great service to the people of Queensland and to this country, and I'm sure that will continue in your new role in London.
George, I wanted to briefly add, having served as your parliamentary secretary, I really appreciated the fact that when I came to you, when I sought this role, you were very, very supportive. As somebody who started in Attorney-General's in 1984, I can tell you it was a great honour to be sworn in as parliamentary secretary in the Attorney-General's Department. I held that position—at one stage I was parliamentary secretary to three ministers—and it was something that I very much relished. Can I thank you for your understanding of the fact that your department was the intersection between society and the law. It has completely changed. To think that multicultural affairs would sit and have responsibilities in Attorney-General's is a recognition of changing times, and so is the fact that you were prepared to take it and take on those responsibilities. So I thank you. It was great to serve in that portfolio.
I think you gave an interview after you'd been appointed, and you relayed the conversation with the Prime Minister about his wanting 'a big beast' in London. He said, 'I want somebody who is politically a big beast to occupy this job in London; I don't want a professional diplomat.' As a minister in this portfolio, hear, hear! I welcome that. I wish you all the very, very best. I know that you are going to be extremely beastly to all those Hooray Henrys in England! I look forward to visiting, as I probably will in my portfolio. It was really good to work with you, George, as your parliamentary secretary and as a senator here.
Given the comments you made, Senator Brandis, I'll take this opportunity to make some observations from the chair myself as well. I'll commence by thanking you for your very kind comments and also for your friendship over many years. We came from different groups of friends with subtly different traditions in the Liberal Party, but as time moved on and as we spent more time together, particularly in this place, we both knew that our subtly different traditions had a great deal more in common than any differences we might spends hours debating over a glass of red.
I was first introduced to you, George—a time you said to me once you don't remember—nearly two decades ago by our mutual friends in the Queensland Young Liberal Movement. You were introduced to me at that time by some of my friends there as being almost Victorian in your views. Unlike most Queenslanders, you took that in your stride as a moment to be proud of, given your great support and respect for Alfred Deakin, which was the topic you immediately turned to upon being introduced in that way.
I next met you through our good friend Senator Fifield, not long after my own election at the end of 2007, in the lengthy wait before taking office. In your immutable style, you said that I would enjoy the Senate and we would get along very well—in fact, famously—although occasionally there'd be only small groups of us, as you understood and recalled that I liked books. You highlighted that as a key difference between the two chambers. Indeed, when we went through our collections we had similar collections, and we often discussed our reading. As others have commented, no-one's shelving is quite as famous as yours, nor as distinguished. When that matter came to public attention, the fact that you so openly defended it because of the importance of books, reading and consideration in politics actually said something about you—you didn't resile from the bookshelves, because of what they held.
I want to note a moment that others have also noted tonight. Late last year, as many people know, I was ill. I was lying in bed at home, recovering and watching Senate question time—which, some said, might have actually been delaying my recovery! On that day you made a statement following our Senate colleague Senator Hanson's entry wearing that particular garment. Obviously I make no comment on the incident itself, but I do want to acknowledge your impromptu and heartfelt speech, which was as forceful an argument for the liberalism that so many of us hold dear as I have heard in this place. It is so much more important because it was impromptu, and therefore everyone knows it was something you genuinely felt.
You made some very kind comments about me in your speech, but your departure leaves a hole that will not easily be filled. The liberal flame will be a little bit dimmer in the Liberal Party following your departure. One of our mutual acquaintances once said—we've discussed this often—that you can tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative by asking them to pick a side between Paine and Burke or Gladstone and Disraeli. But you knew that the unique nature of the Liberal Party we represent and hold so dear is that we represent both. At the same time, we always knew which corner you were in. So it is extremely appropriate, I think, that we're sending you to London in this 150th anniversary of Gladstone's first ministry. I imagine you will participate fully in those celebrations and commemorations later this year.
Valedictories too often sound like wakes, but they're not. You were a senator's senator. You were a proud defender of this chamber, its difference from the other place and the role that all senators play in representing their parties, their communities and their states. Let me finish by saying that, while you will be missed in this place, you have made many friends who I'm sure will maintain their contact, and none better than I.
The Kimberley in Western Australia's north is by every definition grand: it's grand in its size and its scope, it's grand in its perspective and natural beauty, and it's grand in its possibility. Larger than 75 per cent of the world's countries, the Kimberley is a wild land, hemmed in by impenetrable coastline and unforgiving deserts, a severe climate, sparse population and minimal infrastructure. That is why life in the Kimberley is not for the faint-hearted, but for those who choose to call it home there is no greater place to live, work or raise a family.
There are no greater guardians of the Kimberley than the people who call it their home. Tonight I would like to pay tribute to one of those great guardians, a woman whose influence, ebullience and big heart has held the people of the Kimberley in good stead for almost three decades. Elsia Archer has served in local government for nearly 30 years and became an outstanding champion in Western Australia's north-west. As president of the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley, she presided over almost 20 years of ups and downs in the region and has always been a steady and passionate voice.
Elsia campaigned to improve health and youth services in the West Kimberley long before such issues became prominent in our national agenda and certainly before they entered the national conversation. She fought to have a culturally appropriate prison built in Derby so Aboriginal people in custody were able to remain on their land rather than be transferred to a prison in the south of the state. She was instrumental in securing funding for the refurbishment of Derby Airport, which, at a time of economic and social decline in the West Kimberley, is paramount to reinstating Perth to Derby flight services.
She has been a leading voice in supporting local artists. The shire's Kimberley Creative Visual Arts Month is a stand-out event for Western Australia every year, with artists converging on the Kimberley to showcase their work and attracting people from the Australian arts industry. Elsia says:
The Kimberley Art Prize showcases some fantastic works each year and the quality of entries just gets better and better.
Our standard is set because of Elsia's nurturing of existing and emerging artists across the Kimberley region.
Time spent in regional Western Australia is always a meaningful and joyful experience. I've paid countless visits to WA's far north, and these were always made more special whenever I was able to spend time with Elsia and hear about her various causes. Whether we were visiting Indigenous communities or shooting the breeze beside a livestock pen, I saw firsthand the determination and generosity for which she is known. You can always recognise authenticity in a person, and Elsia is as straight a shooter as they come in the west, with a genuine love of the Kimberley.
The community spirit she forged over decades, underpinned by inclusiveness, diversity and celebration of residents from all walks of life as well as the promotion of cultural events, will remain forever unparalleled. Of everything she has achieved, she has said the most significant was moving the West Kimberley Regional Prison to Derby. She reflected on this achievement, saying:
… it was a real high for the community. It brought families into town, children into school and created more jobs for locals …
Few truly understand the adage that 'all politics is local' better than Elsia does. Her focus always was to be the best voice she could be for the Kimberley and for its broad community. For her exceptional contribution, the Western Australian Local Government Association recognised Elsia as an honorary life member. Late last year she stepped down as President of the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley.
I would like to not only acknowledge Elsia's faithful service to the people of WA's north-west but celebrate her tireless effort, resounding energy and positive impact on the community. I am truly grateful for Elsia's professionalism throughout her career and the strong personal friendship she's shown to me over many years. You meet a lot of people in politics, and it must be said: Elsia is most definitely one of a kind. Elsia, your community honours you, your state thanks you and your country salutes you.
Tonight I take this opportunity to voice my ongoing concerns about the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The Turnbull government has a very poor record when it comes to North Queensland. We know that when it came to the northern Australia statement last year, the then minister, Minister Joyce, couldn't be bothered to deliver that particular statement on time. All the stakeholders had come to Parliament House on the expected day, and yet Minister Joyce wasn't the one to provide the statement; it was done by the South Australian member for Sturt, who snuck it into the House of Representatives by tabling it and hoping that nobody would notice that it was late. Now they're also dragging their heels on improving insurance outcomes for disaster-affected areas in North Queensland, hiding behind a three-year ACCC inquiry. Also of great concern to me—and I discussed this in my adjournment contribution last night—is that they're apparently pulling out of the National Partnership on Remote Indigenous Housing funding. This is of great concern.
We know that Mr Turnbull's own backbenchers understand that he's out of touch with the north. We have Townsville based Senator Ian Macdonald telling Sky News:
There's no doubt about it—Malcolm is not seen as representing people in northern and regional Queensland.
That's a quote from November last year. The member for Flynn, Mr O'Dowd, has also said:
We're becoming, in the eyes of the public, more city-oriented than rural and regional.
But there's no greater indictment of the Turnbull government's contempt for North Queensland than the absolute joke of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. There is $5 billion sitting there and a commitment, but it's yet to deliver a single project or a single job for Queensland. The shadow minister for northern Australia, Mr Clare, has said, tongue-in-cheek, that, at this current rate, it would take the federal government 856 years to spend the $5 billion NAIF fund. Let's recap that there is an apparent, but still only theoretical, potential for a NAIF for Queensland. This means that people in places like Gladstone, Emerald, Mount Isa, Townsville, Rockhampton, Mackay, Cairns and Cape York Peninsula are all missing out on the jobs and infrastructure which could come from that fund being used properly.
Let's run through the federal representatives that cover those areas: Mr Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, from the Liberal Party; Mr Katter, the member for Kennedy—and I would be interested in his thoughts on the NAIF; Cathy O'Toole, the federal member for Herbert—and, as a Labor colleague, I know that she's been calling for NAIF funding to address water and energy issues in her electorate, to no avail; Mr Christensen from the Liberal Party in Dawson; Ms Landry in Capricornia for the National Party; Mr Littleproud in Maranoa for the National Party; and Mr O'Dowd in Flynn for the National Party. This list really says it all. I ask: if the LNP members are happy to unite as 'team Queensland' to lobby the Prime Minister on the Land 400 contract, when will they join forces to lobby him for results from the NAIF?
I note from the Gladstone Observer on 6 February the list of priorities that the member for Flynn has indicated. Flynn is one of my duty electorates, so I take a special interest. Mr O'Dowd has said that he will fight for a number of issues in his electorate: inland rail, free trade agreements and a new coal-fired power station. That's as much as I would say about Mr O'Dowd. There is no position on the NAIF and what needs to happen there. This is despite the fact that infrastructure projects based within his electorate would be eligible to apply. I, for one, would love to hear Mr O'Dowd's position on the NAIF and perhaps I'll read about it in the Observer soon.
Then we come to Senator Canavan, the so-called minister for northern Australia, who appears to be using NAIF as his personal plaything, apparently putting his mates on the board and using the NAIF to pick fights with the Queensland government. He's talked up its potential for almost three years in this place whilst it delivers absolutely nothing for his home state. I'm sure that he is somewhat embarrassed by that. It's time for Senator Canavan to stump up for Queensland.
Labor has had concerns about the NAIF and how it operates from the beginning. There have been unexplained conflicts of interest held by board members, issues of lack of transparency, poor governance measures and unreasonable delays in funding projects. On the economics committee, we had a hearing in Cairns, and I must say the CEO made a very difficult job of explaining some very basic concepts. We'll not let this issue drop.
Corporate donations are a stain on our democracy, our politics and our parliament. The Greens believe our democracy should never be for sale, and we need to act to get big money from big corporations out of politics. The Greens are pushing for bans on political donations from for-profit organisations, especially the gambling, tobacco and fossil fuel industries, and this is something we have done for decades now. We are the only party to refuse any corporate donations.
Over the next few weeks, until 4 March, Tasmanians will be bombarded with television and radio ads about the election, ads that are being paid for by the top end of town. This is not just symptomatic of the election in Tasmania. Over the last decade, hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed from big corporations into the bank accounts of political parties in this country and right around the world, and political parties will spend these corporate donations on trying to win elections. The problem in my home state of Tasmania is that we have very poor disclosure laws, and we don't know who is donating to which political party till after an election. Currently, political parties don't have to disclose donation sources until well after an election and only if the sum is more than $13,200. In an intense exchange with reporters on the campaign trail a couple of days ago, Will Hodgman, the Tasmanian Premier, was repeatedly asked to disclose the figure of corporate donations that the Liberal Party in Tasmania are receiving from the gaming industry. The ABC asked:
How can you talk about taking money under the table—
which is what he had just accused the Labor Party of—
when you're not going to tell us how much the gaming lobby's giving you?
Hodgman: We're not the ones going around paying out on gambling interest here—
as though there's no problem at all in taking money from big gaming—
ABC: So it's okay to take money from the gaming industry as long as you don't do anything anti-gaming?
Hodgman: No, it's important that any political party that receives donations discloses them and is prepared to stand by them.
The problem is in Tasmania there's a whiff, a stench. You know something doesn't smell right but you can't work out where it's come from until well after the election and the time has passed. Tasmanians are smelling that whiff, that stench, and it will backfire on the Liberal Party.
The Greens worry that behind any election advertisement there is a large donation from a big business mate. The Greens worry that with every corporate donation there are strings attached. That's why we are pushing for bans on political donations. Tasmania has a history of cosy relationships between political parties and powerful industries. The Greens believe that donation reform will reduce the corrupting influence that these big businesses have on public policy. Andrea Dawkins, the Greens MP for Bass, has been part of an all-women Tasmanian Greens team and is seeking re-election for Bass. She has close community ties and has consistently worked to put the interests of the people of Bass ahead of the interests of the powerful. Andrea Dawkins, a friend of mine, has pushed hard for political donation reform in Tasmania and has led the call to ban political parties taking donations from the pokies barons. Only today we got a report from the Australia Institute that estimates the breakdown of the rivers of gold that are flowing in the pokies industry in Tasmania. The Australia Institute report, authored by Monash University academic Dr Charles Livingstone, said that the Federal Group—the Farrell family—took over 47.8 per cent, or over $52 million, of the poker machine revenue last financial year. That compares to 0.9 per cent to the pubs and clubs—about $970,000—and the state government's $33 million. So Federal Group receives more than double what the state government is receiving in revenue. This stinks. Tasmanians know it. They will throw out the liberal government in three weeks time.
I rise tonight to put on record my serious concerns about the funding for building housing and for maintenance in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There are grave fears in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia that the minister is preparing to crab walk away from a decade of Commonwealth commitment to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. These fears stepped up when funding for future years failed to rate a mention in the budget forecast in December. It now seems that only the minister's electorate in the Northern Territory has been guaranteed any funding beyond June 2018. The government is not closing the gap. By pulling out of one of the fundamental building blocks of economic development, employment, education and community safety in remote Australia, it is widening the gap. Without safe, secure and uncrowded housing, the targets for closing the gap will never be achieved.
I met yesterday with mayors from Queensland's remote Indigenous communities—from Kowanyama, Wujal Wujal, Hopevale and the Torres Strait. As leaders of their communities, they are very worried about the lack of certainty for housing beyond June this year. Cancelling the program will have huge impacts on the growth of local community jobs that has taken place since the program was introduced by Labor a decade ago. If the program stops in June, first nations apprentices, subcontractors, labourers and tradesmen will have to put down their tools and look for work somewhere else, to say nothing of their families. In those four communities alone, 198 local people are employed in the program, and 30 apprentices will be off to the Centrelink office to apply for the Newstart allowance. If the program stops in June, the minister will need to step in and make sure that alternative arrangements are there to support investment in our communities. The Commonwealth cannot take its bat and ball and simply walk off the field.
The national program has grown in significance and effectiveness over the decade. Commonwealth investment has facilitated state and territory co-investment, which has grown over time. We need a committed, ongoing partnership from all levels of government to meet the scale of the need in remote communities. I have received strong expressions of concern on this issue from the Western Australian government, community organisations and Indigenous leaders. On the one hand, the minister is saying there are negotiations taking place with state governments on a shared contribution going forward. I'm at a loss to know whether the minister is obfuscating, telling mistruths or simply playing games. The minister must come clean about this issue because so much of the future of these remote communities rests upon it.
In my own state of Western Australia, some 12,000 Aboriginal people are living in remote communities. The quality of their services and infrastructure is generally poor. Overcrowding and poor housing standards are rife, leading directly to poor outcomes in health, education and family violence. Of the state's 274 remote communities, most do not have municipal or local government services. Indeed, the state government's funds for services do not stretch to the smallest 110 of those remote communities. The minister's own evaluation of these matters said that 1,300 houses were needed in the next decade just to keep up with the population growth. The Shire of Halls Creek expressed its concern and fears over a year ago that the overcrowding would worsen within its boundaries if the federal government Indigenous housing program were discontinued. As a consequence, 30 illegal dwellings have been constructed outside the township of Halls Creek.
Housing is a basic human right. It is wrong morally, politically and economically for the Commonwealth government to abruptly and unilaterally cancel the investment in remote community housing. The government's Closing the gap public discussion paper, released in December, says, 'Australian governments have committed to work in genuine partnership with Indigenous leaders, organisations and communities.' I call on the Commonwealth government to get back to partnering with the Western Australian government and all the other states and territories to co-invest on a long-term basis in remote Indigenous housing. Housing is a right, not a privilege. Without decent housing, the yawning gap in first nations health, employment and education standards will never be closed.
Senate adjourned at 19:40