I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
The committee is considering the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 and amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8395, moved by Senator Griff. The question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Griff be agreed to.
Minister, last night, just as we were coming to the end of this committee stage, I asked you a series of questions around Lottoland, including whether you could explain when you expected the ban to come into effect and the corresponding advertising ban to become effective. Last night, you gave us the indication that you had an opinion about this, but you didn't indicate any legislation or a timetable with regard to legislation. I have to wonder: who's got more information about what's going on, the Senate or The Australian newspaper? Would you be able to give us some indications? Does the government actually have a plan to bring a ban into effect, and what will the advertising ban with regard to Lottoland be?
I do admit to being slightly Delphic last night, but that was on account of never wanting to presume the determinations of our party room. We had a party room meeting this morning. As I indicated last night, the Senate had offered an opinion as to what should happen in this matter, and I said the government would be cognisant of that. The government has been cognisant of that, so I can advise colleagues that the Turnbull government will introduce legislation tomorrow into the House of Representatives to ban betting on lotteries and keno games.
The government has formed the view that permitting betting on these services, also known as synthetic lotteries, does undermine the longstanding community acceptance of official lottery and keno products. These products enjoy community support, as they generate an income stream for small retail businesses and make a significant contribution, through licence fees and taxation, to the provision of public services and infrastructure by state and territory governments. Traditional lotteries and keno games are popular and longstanding recreational gambling products that form an important income stream for thousands of small businesses across Australia, including newsagents, pharmacies, pubs and community clubs. They also generate significant taxation revenue for territory and state governments, helping to fund schools, hospitals, public transport and roads.
Online services offering products that involve betting on lottery outcomes are relatively new and have generated considerable community concern. Since these concerns were first raised last year, the government has listened carefully to a range of groups that have views on the undesirability of permitting betting on these products.
Many Australians enjoy lotteries and keno as a recreational activity, and the government is committed to ensuring that gambling takes place under a robust legislative framework with strong consumer protections and within the boundaries of community standards. The legislation will commence operation six months after its passage through the parliament to ensure that those businesses currently offering online betting on lotteries and keno have an appropriate transition period within which to cease their activity.
I might just cast back a little bit. A number of colleagues in this place last year—Liberal colleagues, Nationals colleagues and Pauline Hanson's One Nation, who have been very active in this area—raised the issue of the synthetic lotteries and the fact that they were causing considerable concern at that stage, particularly to newsagents. As a result, I wrote to the Northern Territory gaming minister to raise these concerns, as Lottoland is registered in the Northern Territory. Subsequent to that, it was announced by the Northern Territory that betting on lotteries in Australia would not be permitted under that licence. But there was, however, still the capacity for bets to be placed on the outcomes of overseas lotteries, and also there was the emergence of betting on the outcome of keno. This is something that was of concern to pubs and clubs, and representative bodies such as the Australian Hotels Association, so that's something that we looked at very seriously. As I say, it's something that numbers of colleagues, including Senator Hanson, raised with the government. We have taken a look at it, and, as I indicated, it is the decision of the government to introduce legislation tomorrow into the House of Representatives to ban betting on lotteries and keno games.
Thank you for that response. It is a little clearer than the oracle last night! Could I just get you to step through that time line quite clearly for us—the legislation in tomorrow, and six months after it becomes law, you indicate, the ban is going to come into effect. Perhaps I missed it, but I'm just wondering what your advertising ban time line is with regard to that. When does that become effective?
The advertising ban we will have on gambling comes into effect at the end of the month, and that applies to synthetic lotteries, as it does to other gambling products during live sport—obviously, that will come into effect and it will apply to the synthetic lotteries. Six months from the passage of this legislation, which will ban betting on lotteries and keno games, they will no longer occur.
I would like to move two lots of Greens amendments on sheet 8367. Senator Hinch last night requested that they be moved separately, and I'm happy to do that. I will be moving amendments (1) to (6) and then moving amendments (9) and (16).
These amendments relate to issues I've spoken about—as did Senator Whish-Wilson in his speech, and as was in much of the debate last night—in relation to the exemption given in this current legislation that still allows Foxtel subscription services to show gambling ads on their channels, based on audience numbers. We find this ridiculous. If we agree that gambling ads should not be shown during live sporting events, they shouldn't, full stop. That's it. It should be the end of the story. There should be no exemptions just because some of those shows or some of those events are shown on a pay TV subscription channel.
The other part of the amendments deals with the issue of the cut-off time. This legislation provides for gambling ads not to be shown for five minutes before and after play starts. We believe that that is not sufficient to ensure that we protect children and minimise the harm done by these insidious gambling adverts which push gambling down the throats of children, the desire of the disgusting gambling barons being to breed an entirely new generation of gambling addicts. That's what these companies want to do. They want to rip money out of the pockets of families, rip money off the community, for their own profits—making profits from people's misery. They don't give two hoots about whether it's done to children or adults, but they like children because they like having the influence that can create a lifetime of gambling addiction. That's the business model of these big gambling corporations—people who make profits out of other people's gambling addiction, which, of course, we know is an illness and a sickness. They like to get the kids, because they think they have victims for life. That's how these disgusting corporations and companies think.
So, in order to deal with that, we think that at the very least gambling ads should not be played within the period 30 minutes before the start of the actual match. That captures the pre-match programming, whether it's entertainment or commentary, as the kids are gathering around the television and families are getting together in the lounge room or wherever it is they're watching and getting ready for the game to start. Children should be protected from these gambling ads once and for all. Of course, I've said over and over again that the Greens would prefer there to be no gambling ads on television. We think there is no need for it. We think it is a revolting industry; it is a parasite sucking on people who are vulnerable. People could be much better protected if this legislation actually banned gambling advertising outright, but it doesn't. So what we're trying to do is strengthen what is a pretty weak piece of legislation and ensure there aren't loopholes to play with the time zones and loopholes in relation to audience numbers on channels. I will take advice from the chair as to how we vote on those amendments separately, but that is what I would like to move.
The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, the suggestion from the chair is that you seek leave to move all the amendments together and then we separate them out as you've requested. I just want to confirm that you are seeking to particularly separate (9) and (16). So, if we're putting two questions, the first question will be on amendments (1) to (8) and (10) to (15).
That's correct.
The CHAIR: You have leave to move them all together and we will separate them as described.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (16) on sheet 8367 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), at the end of subsection 4(3AB), add:
and; (e) does not take into account the number of end-users of online content services.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 16), after subsection 4(3AB), insert:
(3AC) Despite subsection (1), the Parliament also intends that gambling promotional content provided in conjunction with live coverage of sporting events on broadcasting services, datacasting services, internet services or online content services be regulated in a manner that is consistent across the range of those services.
(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (before line 19), before the definition of gambling promotional content, insert:
coverage has the same meaning as in Schedule 8.
(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (before line 21), before the definition of online content service, insert:
in conjunction with, when used in relation tolive coverage of a sporting event, has the same meaning as in Schedule 8.
live, in relation to coverage of a sporting event, has the same meaning as in Schedule 8.
(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (after line 23), after the definition of online content service provider, insert:
sporting event has the same meaning as in Schedule 8.
(6) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 12, insert:
12A After subsection 123(4)
Insert:
(4A) Despite subsection (4), if:
(a) a group representing a particular section of the broadcasting industry develops a code of practice to be observed in the conduct of the broadcasting operations of that section of the industry; and
(b) the code covers the provision of gambling promotional content by that section of the industry;
the ACMA must not include the code in the Register of codes of practice unless the ACMA is satisfied that the code is consistent with the objects of this Act and the regulatory policy set out in section 4.
(4B) If:
(a) a group representing a particular section of the broadcasting industry amends a code of practice to be observed in the conduct of the broadcasting operations of that section of the industry; and
(b) the amendments relate to the provision of gambling promotional content by that section of the industry; and
(c) the ACMA is not satisfied that the amendments are consistent with the objects of this Act and the regulatory policy set out in section 4;
the ACMA may remove the code from the Register of codes of practice.
(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (after line 21), after subsection 125A(3), insert:
(3A) Despite anything in section 44 of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 of that Act (disallowance of legislative instruments) applies to a direction under subsection (1) of this section.
(8) Schedule 1, item 13, page 8 (line 21), omit "5 minutes", substitute "30 minutes".
(9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 8 (line 23), omit "5 minutes", substitute "30 minutes".
(10) Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (after line 3), after subsection 125A(14), insert:
Audience share not relevant
(14A) A gambling promotion program standard must not make provision for or in relation to a matter by reference to the size of the audience of a broadcast.
(11) Schedule 1, item 22, page 23 (after line 5), after subclause 13(4), insert:
Number of end -users not relevant
(4A) The online content service provider rules must not make provision for or in relation to a matter by reference to the number of end-users of an online content service provider.
(12) Schedule 1, item 22, page 24 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph 15(5)(a).
(13) Schedule 1, item 22, page 24 (lines 25 and 26), omit paragraph 15(6)(a).
(14) Schedule 1, item 22, page 25 (lines 1 to 18), omit subclauses 15(7) to (10).
(15) Schedule 1, item 22, page 29 (line 3), omit "5 minutes", substitute "30 minutes".
(16) Schedule 1, item 22, page 29 (line 5), omit "5 minutes", substitute "30 minutes".
I'm mindful of many young people being here in the chamber with us this morning. Often the gap between what happens in parliament and what happens in people's lives is an enormous one, or it certainly feels like that to many people outside the parliament. I just want to put on the record, particularly while the young people are here, that Labor certainly understands the community's call for safety for young people watching television.
In my contribution yesterday evening I spoke about an ABC news story written by Damian McIver which referred to two high-profile AFL players. One of them was a Geelong defender, Harry Taylor, who spoke about his children. He has three children, and he was concerned about the fact that his eldest children can name a lot of the ads on TV about gambling and online betting. That's a concern to him as a football player. There were other people who spoke out, including another AFL football player, Easton Wood from the Western Bulldogs. He was really concerned that this issue was getting out of control. He's not on his own. Research undertaken by Deakin University—and I am sure the young people in the chamber can bear witness to this—found that over 90 per cent of children can recall having ever seen an ad for sports betting and about three-quarters of children aged eight to 16 can recall the name of at least one sports bet brand. A quarter of the children in the sample were actually able to recall four brands or more, which is very, very concerning. Seventy-five per cent of children in the sample thought that gambling was a normal or common part of sport. Parents were really very concerned about this, and they conveyed that they thought that there was just too much gambling advertising on television.
So Labor understands that Australians don't want children to associate betting and gambling as being a core part of sport. Today we're debating what to do about it. We have to be careful about the legislation that we enact in this place. There are amendments being moved, but the thoughts that Labor have about the issue are that there is industry and community desire for consistency on the restriction of gambling promotions during sport being broadcast live, including on online platforms, and there's a lot of community concern about the level of gambling promotions before, during and after live coverage of sporting events. However, while Labor understand the sentiment behind these amendments, we will not be supporting them, for the following reasons.
Labor regards the approach of government and industry to be a step in the right direction. The broadcast industry and the ACMA have just last week concluded a process of updating codes of practice which involved significant community consultation and consideration by the regulator, including the investment of time and resources by both industry and government. The ACMA has stated that it will closely monitor the operation of additional restrictions in the updated broadcasting codes and after 12 months will consider whether to conduct a formal review of their effectiveness. Labor supports this approach and does not seek to change or disrupt the new arrangements, as proposed by these amendments.
Further, the regulatory policy of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 provides:
… Parliament intends that different levels of regulatory control be applied across the range of … services according to the degree of influence that different types of … services are able to exert in shaping community views in Australia.
… Parliament also intends that … services be regulated in a manner that …
… enables public interest considerations to be addressed in a way that does not impose unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on providers of broadcasting services—
among other things. Labor appreciate that evidence of community attitudes indicates that stronger protections may well be warranted, but we are also cognisant of the regulatory policy. Labor believes that industry should be afforded the time and the flexibility needed to alter business practices and contractual arrangements to address community concerns, which is how the approach that's been adopted may be regarded at this point. Labor does not seek to permit discrete changes to the standard regulatory policy of the Broadcasting Services Act on an issue-by-issue basis. Furthermore, there are more factors than audience size that may go to considering whether a service is more or less influential. Whether a service is freely available or subscription based may also be determinative, for example. Therefore, the amendments may not even achieve any greater consistency between platforms, as intended. For those reasons, we will not be supporting these amendments.
I just indicate, as I canvassed these issues last night, that the government won't be supporting the amendments.
The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Hanson-Young on sheet 8367, amendments (1) to (8) and (10) to (15), be agreed to.
The question is that amendments (9) and (16) on sheet 8367 be agreed to.
I move Labor amendment (1) on sheet 8380:
(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 18 (after line 25), after paragraph 3(1)(q), insert:
(qa) a service provided by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation; or
Labor has circulated sheet 8380, containing an amendment to remove the SBS from the operation of this bill. In our view, this amendment is really no big deal. It doesn't change the substantive outcome to be achieved. It merely changes the way that outcome will be achieved. Labor's amendment goes to the mechanism by which the outcome will be implemented, and it goes to that alone.
What Labor's amendment does is preserve parliament's intent with respect to the SBS being a broadcaster that's independent of the government, and it maintains the status quo, whereby SBS services on television, radio and online are regulated by the SBS Codes of Practice 2014 (revised 2016). It's really very simple. Labor's amendment means that the SBS will be subject to additional restrictions on gambling promotions during live sport, just like everybody else. But, instead of being regulated by ACMA rules under this bill, SBS will be regulated by the SBS Codes of Practice.
Labor's amendment simply corrects the wrong-headed approach in this bill, which would include SBS in a regulatory regime that would, quite improperly, make the regulation of SBS content a matter of discretion for the Australian Communications and Media Authority. With all due respect to the ACMA, that is simply not the intent of parliament when it comes to the SBS.
Let me be clear. Labor intends that SBS be subject to additional restrictions on gambling promotions to the same extent that other services are. There's no way that Labor would move an amendment to exempt SBS from the overarching requirement to restrict gambling promotions in accordance with the intent of government policy. Indeed, it was Labor who called for stronger protections around gambling advertising during live sport last year, well ahead of the government's announcement.
What's more, SBS has made it clear that it will be subject to additional restrictions just like everybody else. SBS is on record as saying that it's committed to implementing appropriate restrictions in accordance with the policy. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, SBS stated:
… SBS remains committed to working constructively with the Government to implement new rules to restrict gambling advertising during live sporting events on online platforms in accordance with the Government’s May 2017 policy announcement.
SBS will work with Government and industry to ensure that new restrictions in the SBS Codes are consistent with those applying to other providers.
SBS will implement additional restrictions, in accordance with government policy, by 30 March 2018, on both its broadcast and its online platforms. Consistent with past practice and in relation to broadcasting, SBS will incorporate the new gambling advertising restrictions by reference to the Free TV and CRA codes of practice that have been registered and which were announced by the ACMA on Friday, 16 March, this year. In the online space, SBS will implement new restrictions ahead of the rest of the market, and it will do this ahead of the ACMA, which is yet to be empowered under this bill to develop and implement online content service provider rules.
At the heart of this amendment is Labor's commitment to upholding the independence of our national broadcasters. It's unacceptable that this bill permits a level of ACMA intervention over SBS programming, contrary to the independence of the SBS and the co-regulatory framework in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The implementation mechanism set out in the bill is inappropriate for application to a public broadcaster such as SBS because it would disturb SBS's editorial independence from government and is inconsistent with provisions of the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991, the SBS Act, which safeguards this independence. The SBS Act requires the SBS board to maintain the independence of the SBS, and section 11 limits the matters on which SBS can be directed by the minister. In particular, section 11(3A) of the SBS Act provides:
The Minister must not give a direction—
to the SBS board—
in relation to the content to be provided on a digital media service.
A similar provision applies in relation to broadcast services under section 11(3). The policy justification for section 11 is to ensure the independence of public broadcasters.
The BSA also recognises SBS's independence. For example, section 13(5) of the BSA provides:
Except as expressly provided by this Act, the regulatory regime established by this Act does not apply to national broadcasting services.
The effects of this provision include that schemes such as those in part 9 of the BSA—which provides for content rules, program standards and codes of practice applying to other sectors, particularly commercial television broadcasters—do not apply to SBS. This provision recognises the separate regulatory scheme established by the SBS Act. The BSA recognises the independence of SBS and contains distinct processes for code notification, the investigation of complaints and any actions the ACMA may take in relation to the SBS.
While in theory the bill permits the ACMA to exempt SBS from the online content service provider rules, there is no assurance the ACMA would do so, and the ACMA's discretion to do so may be fettered by ministerial direction. In any event, with all due respect to the ACMA, rules around SBS programming should not be a matter of ACMA discretion in the first place; they should remain a matter for the independent SBS board, which has a legislative obligation under the SBS Act to develop codes of practice relating to programming matters.
SBS should not be captured by the regulatory regime set out in this bill. Instead, implementation of new restrictions should be achieved by the SBS Codes of Practice. As such, all Labor's amendment does is change the mechanism by which the SBS will be regulated. It prevents the SBS programming from being subject to rules developed by the government regulator, the ACMA, and maintains the integrity of the regulatory regime currently in place.
The regulatory framework is well established and clear when it comes to the SBS. SBS services are already subject to gambling advertising restrictions during live sport under the current SBS Codes of Practice. Unlike other media sectors, where codes of practice are limited to regulating broadcast platforms, this is not the case for the SBS. The SBS codes already cover both broadcast and online services, and the SBS board has the discretion to include new restrictions on gambling advertising in live sport streamed online by SBS. SBS has a responsibility to ensure its policies keep pace with Australia's converging media landscape. SBS has kept pace with technological change and extended the scope of its codes of practice so that they apply to SBS's online platforms.
The SBS codes are developed by the SBS board under the SBS Act. They're a robust and enforceable set of rules overseen by the independent SBS Ombudsman. In addition to this, the BSA provides that the ACMA may investigate the SBS. If the ACMA is satisfied it should take action to encourage the SBS to comply with the code of practice, the ACMA may, by notice in writing, recommend that the SBS take action to comply, or to broadcast or to otherwise publish an apology. Further, ACMA may give the minister a written report on the matter, which the minister must cause to be laid before each house of parliament. This is just one of a number of accountability mechanisms the SBS is subject to. However, under the current regime the ACMA cannot direct the SBS in relation to its programming, nor does ACMA have any scope to impose a civil penalty on SBS, as is contemplated by this bill. In this way, the BSA recognises and upholds the independence of the SBS.
The government say that they want everyone to be subject to the same regulatory framework, that the same rules ought to apply to everyone. The government will argue that Labor's amendment undermines consistency. Well, there are at least four key arguments that rebut this, that demonstrate that it is, indeed, the government's bill that is the inconsistent oddity.
First: while it might appear to be consistent to have one schedule to regulate all online services for gambling promotions during live sport, in fact it is inconsistent. Having the ACMA regulate SBS content is inconsistent with the SBS Act and the Broadcasting Services Act. Just because the Minister for Communications has a simplistic understanding of how regulation in his own portfolio works and has complete disregard for the independence of public broadcasters, it doesn't mean that the Senate should pass laws that are inconsistent with the existing regulatory framework or inconsistent with parliament's intent with respect to the independence of the SBS.
The Minister for Communications seeks to intervene on all manner of things when it comes to our independent public broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS. Whether it be attempting to force disclosure of salaries, to change the date of the Triple J Hottest 100 or meddling in the ABC enterprise agreement—you name it—the current Minister for Communications has shown time and time again that he simply does not respect the independence of our very trusted and valued national broadcasters.
Second: while it might appear to be consistent to have one schedule to regulate all online services for gambling promotions during live sport, in fact it creates inconsistencies for citizens and consumers. Currently, an audience member who wishes to provide feedback or to complain about SBS content has a one-stop shop in the SBS, given the unique nature of SBS as a public media organisation. Audiences expect a single source of content rules, not different rules for different complaints and different compliance processes depending on what platform they're using and what type of sport they're watching.
Third: subjecting the SBS to this bill is inconsistent with the stated policy objective of the government that opportunities for self- and co-regulation should be pursued to a greater, not a lesser, extent. Recent examples of government support for self- and co-regulation include the ACMA's work in Optimal conditions for self- and co-regulatory arrangements. First published in June 2010 and updated in September 2011 and April 2015, this occasional paper notes:
… key international and government organisations have promoted self- and co-regulation as alternatives to direct regulation—
and that the government has encouraged the use of light-handed regulatory options. It continues:
The Australian Government has encouraged the use of self- and co-regulatory mechanisms as part of its best practice regulation agenda.
In 2014, the Department of Communications published Regulating harms in the Australian communications sector, a policy background paper which notes:
… the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 enunciate a preference for co‐regulation.
It also notes:
… there continues to be an assumption (by industry, consumers and government) that industry‐wide co‐regulation should be a first port‐of‐call when new concerns emerge …
Furthermore, in relation to the broadcasting industry, the paper noted:
It may be timely for industry to ask itself about how it could make greater use of self‐regulation …
More recently, the final report of the Department of Communications and the Arts review of the ACMA noted:
Best practice regulatory design also suggests that in the communications sector, with its fast pace of change and innovation, greater reliance on co-regulatory and self-regulatory models should lead to better outcomes for consumers and industry.
In days gone by, the Liberal government made a great song and dance about deregulation and cutting red tape, yet today, here in the Senate, they wish to force the SBS, which is currently self-regulating effectively, to submit to direct regulation. This is costly, it's duplicative and it's inconsistent of the Turnbull government. As a matter of policy and best practice and in order to alleviate the burden on the Australian taxpayer, the SBS should be encouraged to regulate by codes of practice where possible.
Finally, don't be misled that the government's approach to regulation of gambling promotions during live sport is consistent with or analogous to the Commonwealth's regulation of tobacco advertising. It's not. The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 is a law of general application in Australia, and it's administered by the Department of Health with referral mechanisms to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Government Solicitor. In contrast, this bill to regulate gambling promotions during live sport online is a platform-specific and program-specific set of rules in a schedule that is to be tacked onto the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, an act that is administered by the ACMA. As a schedule to the BSA, this bill inherits the regulatory framework that pertains to the SBS under the BSA and the SBS Act, which, as I've already described, mandates the independence of the SBS.
In essence, what this bill highlights is the ongoing failure of the Liberal government to adapt to the regulatory framework for media and communications in the 21st century. The bill proposes to regulate online platforms by tacking yet another schedule onto the outdated, pre-internet Broadcasting Services Act 1992, now over 25 years old. If the Turnbull government wants to regulate both broadcast and online platforms coherently or alter the regulatory framework in the BSA as it relates to the SBS, it should conduct comprehensive and long overdue reform of the BSA. The Turnbull government should be exploring ways to encourage the commercial television, commercial radio and subscription television industries to utilise self- and co-regulatory approaches in relation to online content provided by those sectors.
In closing, for the government to threaten that it will pull this bill if Labor's amendment gets up is pure nonsense and bluff. Both the government and Labor are committed to implementing online restrictions, but SBS should not be directly subject to the regulatory regime set out in this bill. Labor's amendment fixes this error and is 100 per cent consistent with government policy on the restriction of gambling promotions, on the independence of the SBS and in relation to best practice regulation. Overall, including restrictions on gambling advertising during live sporting events on online platforms in the SBS codes would be clearer for audiences, would enable more efficient handling of complaints by both SBS and the ACMA and would appropriately preserve the SBS's editorial independence from the government. Labor's amendment does not mean that the SBS will not be regulated or will be exempt from regulation. It will simply keep the mechanism for the regulation of the SBS the same as it is now—regulation by codes of practice. I seek your support for this amendment.
If someone were tuned in listening to Senator O'Neill's contribution, they could have been forgiven for believing that the SBS and the ABC are sovereign states. They're not. They are creations of this parliament and operate within the laws that this parliament determines. And the parliament determines different laws from time to time.
In moving this amendment, the opposition is signalling that its policy is that weaker gambling advertising restrictions should apply to SBS than would apply to all other online content service providers. Legislating an exemption for SBS would distort competitive neutrality, as SBS would be able to self-regulate and all other online content service providers would be subject to direct regulation of gambling promotions during live coverage of sporting events.
A key objective of the government's policy is for the same or similar restrictions to apply across all broadcast, subscription and online platforms on which gambling promotions are provided in conjunction with live coverage of sporting events to ensure consistency for viewers and ensure that no content provider is at a competitive or regulatory disadvantage or advantage as a result of the restrictions. The government acknowledges the importance of independence for public broadcasters. However, this does not mean that rules that limit social harm arising from exposure to gambling promotions should not apply to the SBS. As I referred to before, SBS has independence within the parameters set by the parliament. This does not mean, and it has never meant, that SBS is free to do whatever it likes. In no way, shape or form can this legislation be seen to be attacking the editorial independence of the SBS. The SBS is already subject to other legislation aimed at preventing social harm from advertising, such as the ban on tobacco advertising. It's also subject to election advertising regulation, so seeking to apply these restrictions to SBS is an appropriate measure for which there is precedent.
The ACMA will be given power to grant individual or class exceptions for online content service providers or particular online content services, and SBS may apply for such an exemption, so a legislative exemption for SBS is unnecessary. The government can't support a proposition that SBS not be subject to the same rules that will apply to all other online content service providers.
I note in conclusion that Save Our SBS, which is, I guess, the analogous organisation to the Friends of the ABC, does not support the Australian Labor Party's amendment and does support the government's proposition in this regard.
I rise to say that the Greens will be supporting this amendment put forward by the opposition. We do so for one main reason—that is, we are extremely concerned at the attitude and rise of antagonism of this government and certain members in this place towards our public broadcasters. We know that there are some people—even some on the crossbench, also known as One Nation and Senator Pauline Hanson—who believe that our public broadcasters shouldn't exist and that they don't deserve funding, let alone the independence to make their own editorial decisions or indeed managerial decisions. They would prefer, of course, that our public broadcasters were punished for the stories that they write and broadcast in relation to things that perhaps One Nation and Senator Pauline Hanson do—glass jaws, I would put to you, Chair, from the leader of One Nation in relation to particularly the ABC but also the SBS.
We've heard from the SBS managing director and the board, very clearly, that they have the full intention of abiding by the will of the parliament in relation to banning gambling ads during live sport. In fact the SBS have taken many other principled positions on not showing advertising—for example, alcohol advertising on NITV. They've made a decision that that is not in the interests of their audience and it's not within public and community expectations. They are a broadcaster that are already going above and beyond what is expected and what is required of them.
We know that, as a matter of principle, there has been attack after attack after attack from some within the government, particularly the likes of the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, who just can't stand the ABC and just can't stand SBS. Every opportunity that that bloke gets to attack our public broadcasters, he takes. And of course he's still wielding great power and influence within the benches of the government, despite the fact that he hasn't been Prime Minister for a number of years. He still wields power in that party because of the right-wing rump that are left on the coalition benches. They can't stand our public broadcasters. They hate them with a passion. Why? Because they're trusted. Their news reporting is trusted. They're loved by the Australian people. It is public money well spent—that is what the Australian voters and public think, over and over again. When you look at the public perception of SBS and ABC at a time when media reporting, politics and business are all on the nose, which institutions overwhelmingly get the biggest tick of approval for truth and integrity? Well, I'll tell you: over and over and over again, it comes down to the ABC and SBS, our public broadcasters. We should be finding more ways to support them, as opposed to cut after cut after cut.
SBS, of course, has been under the knife from this coalition government from day dot. Sixty million dollars has effectively been cut from its budgets in the last few years. Yet of course, as we know, the minister and his government are willing to hand out public money—$30 million—to Murdoch's Foxtel, while our public broadcasters get cut over and over again.
This amendment is at least one way of ensuring that we in this place, in the Senate, are going to stand strong for our public broadcasters and for the Australian people who believe in the importance and the public interest of our public broadcasters and in the need for our media institutions to have the shining light of integrity that our public broadcasters carry and continue to carry, at a time when other media outfits right across the country and the world are looking shabbier and shabbier day by day. This amendment goes some way to say: 'You know what? The Senate actually cares about the independence of our public broadcasters and their ability to get on with their jobs.'
SBS have been very clear. They don't want to run gambling ads on live sport. They're not interested. They don't want to do it. But they want to be able to ensure that this isn't just another cut to their independence and an attack on their integrity, which we know the government are incredibly obsessed with because of the right-wing rump on their benches and, of course, because of the deals that they have to keep finding themselves in with One Nation and Senator Pauline Hanson, who is most upset with our public broadcasters because they report on things that she says and then doesn't deliver on, or they report on things that she has said she didn't do but has done. The ABC and the SBS report on stories which she doesn't like. Well, we're all politicians in this place, and sometimes the media write stories that we don't like. That doesn't mean you turn around when you're at the negotiating table with the government and say: 'Hey, let's shut up those journalists at the ABC or SBS. That's what I want. You want our vote for tax cuts? Well, shut up the ABC and SBS.' That is the type of negotiation that is going on here between this Turnbull government and One Nation and their leader, Senator Pauline Hanson. They hate the ABC because the ABC speaks the truth. They hate the SBS because the SBS reports on real news, not the fake crap that's spread all over Senator Pauline Hanson's Facebook page.
That's what this amendment is about: standing up for our public broadcasters and ensuring that they have their independence confirmed and they have the ability to do their job without the fear and intimidation of budget cuts and slurs that come from government members on the other side. Of course, we know Senator Eric Abetz, one of the biggest haters of our public broadcasters, sits in this chamber. He would like nothing more than the independence of the ABC being slashed, and he doesn't mind whether that happens in one blow or step by step by step. Senator Abetz has made it a mission to destroy Australia's well-loved, trusted public broadcasters. He wants to throw them under the bus, and this government, step by step by step, is allowing that narrative and that agenda to continue.
So this amendment is important. It's an important principle for us as a Senate to say: 'No, we're not going to put up with that biased agenda. We're not going to put up with this attack on our public broadcasters. We are going to stand up for the independence of our public broadcasters and the belief of the Australian people that their money is being spent on news and broadcasters that are the shining light of journalism in this country.' They are the most trusted, the highest rating, when it comes to integrity of institutions. This government can't stand it. One Nation can't stand it. It's important that the Senate vote for this amendment to send the message that we are not going to stand by and let our public broadcasters be a punching bag for this government, Mr Tony Abbott and Senator Abetz. And we're definitely not going to sit by and let the ABC and SBS be a punching bag for Senator Pauline Hanson and those lunatics in her One Nation party.
In light of the minister's comments in response to my words around our amendment, I'm sure the minister's aware of and has read deeply and carefully the recent final report of the ACMA review, which has been accepted by government—at least I thought it was. It was recommended in that review that co- and self-regulation be pursued to a greater, not a lesser, extent. My question to you, Minister, is: have you changed your mind on this already?
No, the government hasn't. What we are seeking to do is to legislate a consistent regime for online activities and, when it comes to gambling advertising during live sporting events on online platforms, to ensure we have the same legislative regime apply across the board. I did say in my earlier comments that to rely on a code for SBS in terms of its online activities would be weaker because there would not be the legislative penalties for SBS online activities that there are for other online operators. We want a consistent regime, and we want a strong regime.
I don't think there's any doubt that we seek a strong regime, but I made a number of points about the argument for consistency, which I think the minister's words are quite disingenuous about. You asserted just then, once again, that code regulation permits weaker regulation, and we have to say that that's complete nonsense from our point of view. Minister, if code regulation permits weaker regulation, why use code regulation for the broadcast platform?
There are two different sorts of codes. There are the codes that apply to commercial broadcasters, for which there are penalties, and there are the codes that apply to the public broadcasters, for which there are not penalties. If you apply a code based regime to SBS online activities, that would mean there would be a category of online activity that would not be subject to any penalty. That is a weaker regime, whichever way you look at it.
Can I ask for the minister's view about the SBS and its independence from ACMA. Minister, do you consider the SBS to be independent from ACMA?
ACMA does not have a role in editorial decisions at the moment or into the future. The whole idea of legislated independence for public broadcasters is that they are not subject to direction in editorial matters or news content by the government of the day. And the government of the day will not, under this regime, have the capacity to do that, and ACMA will not have the capacity to do that. Independence does not mean that the public broadcasters are in their own parallel universe, completely immune to the legislation passed by this parliament. They are subject to the legislation passed by this parliament, and they have legislated independence in editorial matters, and they will continue to have legislated independence in editorial matters, operational matters and news matters.
Minister, none of your comments can persuade me to think that you are absolutely supportive of the codes as they need to exist. Do you concede that this bill is inconsistent with the regulatory framework?
Absolutely not. To not have this legislation apply to SBS's online activities would mean that there then would be created an inconsistency in the regulatory framework.
Minister, you say that you want a consistent regime, despite the need for different treatments for different parts of the sector, yet this bill permits all manner of exemptions for the ACMA to decide upon. Do you have a view about giving that much power to ACMA?
And ACMA will still have that capacity.
The bill permits some services to be unregulated; no penalties will apply to them. So why not permit the SBS to act as a self-regulator, in alignment with the final report recommendations from the ACMA review—or has the Turnbull government abandoned its commitment to industry self-regulation?
The ACMA may well decide to grant some sort of exemption, but that's a matter for the ACMA.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8380, as moved by Senator O'Neill, be agreed to.
Chair, Senator Steele-John was outside the chamber. He was unable to make it here in time, so I'm asking that the vote be recommitted.
The CHAIR: Senator Siewert, you need to seek leave.
I seek leave to have the vote recommitted so that it would reflect the views of the chamber, given that Senator Steele-John was unable to get into the chamber in time. He's literally just outside the door.
The CHAIR: Senator Siewert, it is really up to Senator Steele-John to provide an explanation as to why he was not in the chamber.
Chair, I got my wheels stuck in the grass in the courtyard. It took a little bit to get out.
Leave granted.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8380, as moved by Senator O'Neill, be agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8406 revised together:
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:
Note: The provisions of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 62 of the Legislation Act 2003 (see subsection 13(5) of that Act).
(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 12, insert:
12A Subsection 122(7) (note)
Repeal the note.
(3) Page 34 (after line 26), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 2—Program standards
Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015
1 Section 10 (table item 8)
Repeal the item, substitute:
8 An amendment made under section 128 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to a standard under Part 9 of that Act
This amendment deals with the issue that I spoke of in my speech in the second reading debate last night. We know that in 2015 the government, without any consultation and with very little attention from the parliament, moved to give themselves the right to change codes and standards in the communications act to allow the minister to make changes without parliamentary oversight. Normally, of course, regulations and other various changes and directions could be disallowed or debated in the parliament. In 2015 this government, without any consultation, changed those rules, to give the minister the power to willy-nilly change or give directions in relation to standards and codes.
Today we've been debating the standards and codes in relation to gambling advertising. But there is a big fight looming, and it is in relation to the requirements for our broadcasters as to what level of Australian-made content they have to show and what level of Australian-made children's content they must broadcast. We know that the big broadcasters, the commercial free-to-air broadcasters, don't want to have these restrictions upon them. They prefer to buy cheap crap made in the US or elsewhere, and to play it here in Australia, and to not have to invest in our local content, and our local film and screen industry. We also know that the big commercial free-to-air broadcasters don't believe that they should have to invest in Australian-made children's content.
At a time when broadcasters are diversifying from television screens into online platforms, mobiles, iPads and other streaming services, and our children are, in fact, engaged more than ever in watching and consuming created content, we should be thinking more as policymakers about the quality of that content that's made for children and that is available to our young audiences. And it's important in today's age that Australian kids are able to access good-quality, Australian-made content. They deserve the right to have their stories told. They deserve the right to have the stories of their community and their country reflected back at them. We all have those memories of being kids and watching Skippy, Roundthe Twist, Play School or Bananas in Pyjamasor of our own children accessing good-quality, Australian-made kids' content. All of that is going to become harder and harder unless we protect the requirements for our broadcasters to invest in and show Australian-made kids' content. And, of course, this goes beyond just kids' TV. This is also in relation to Australian-made drama.
We have an amazing industry of talented creators here in Australia who are very fearful that jobs are about to be shed and they will have to go offshore, because the investment in Australian-made content, in Australian stories, just won't be here if these changes to content requirements are made at the stroke of a pen by the minister. The exemptions—and this is where the rubber hits the road—under the standards and codes section of the act, allow the minister to simply write a direction. There is no parliamentary oversight for this. There is no opportunity for the Senate to debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing or whether there needs to be a compromise. It will simply be at the will of the minister—of course, being begged by the big broadcasters. Not only do they have free licences, because they don't have to pay fees any more—taxpayers gave them a big free ticket last year at the whim and the request of the minister—but also they don't want to have these requirements to invest in Australian-made stories or for Australian kids to be able to access stories about their communities being reflected back at them.
All this amendment does is reinstate parliamentary oversight. It doesn't say what quota is right or wrong. It's got nothing to do with that. It simply says that the parliament has a right to act as a check and a balance on the decisions and directions being made by the minister. I think that is absolutely fair. We're all senators in this place and we're passionate about being able to review legislation, to improve legislation and to ensure that the will of the Australian people is being reflected in the laws that pass this place. Let's make sure that, in relation to this issue, the parliament still has a role—because, to date, it doesn't. The minister can simply make these changes, which will fundamentally change the look, the feel and the face of Australian television, the look, the feel and the face of Australian-made stories and the look, the feel and the face of kids' TV, whether that's on the big screens at home or, indeed, the little screens in their hands.
Australian kids deserve to have Australian stories. They deserve to be able to learn about their communities through storytelling, through questioning and through being able to quiz what are norms and whether something is right or wrong, to help them make sense of the world. If we get rid of these requirements, if we allow the minister to do this without even a check or balance from the parliament, that's all going to go out the window—because we know these peak broadcasters don't care about what our Australian kids are consuming. All they care about is their bottom dollar. All they care about is the bottom line on their budget sheets. They don't care about Australian-made content. They don't care about the industry jobs that are going to be lost offshore, because they'll just buy crap from the US to fill our screens or, worse than that, in between, we'll be bombarded even more with terrible reality television. That's what the broadcasters tell us.
I rise on a point of order. There is a certain level of language expected in the chamber, and I think the senator should observe it.
Senator Hanson-Young, I would remind you of parliamentary language.
I will withdraw the word 'crap' and replace it with 'rubbish'. All these broadcasters care about is their bottom line. All they care about is getting cheap, rubbish shows from the United States and putting them on our televisions and then pumping whatever change they may have left over into reality television. And they say to Australian families, 'This is good family viewing.' Well, I tell you what, I don't think Married at First Sight is the best show for our kids to have to sit down to watch. I don't think that's particularly educational.
But this is the type of move and push that is going to happen. The big broadcasters are clamouring for it. All you need to do is read their submissions to the government's content review. They don't want these quotas in place, they don't want requirements, and for every inch you give them they will take a mile. They begged the government for free licence fees only a year ago. The government gave it to them but got nothing. This minister is not a very good negotiator, because he got absolutely nothing in return. He gave them free licence fees, and now they're saying, 'And now we don't want to have to have restrictions on the type of content that we show and broadcast.'
Australian artists, actors, producers, scriptwriters, sound engineers and camera crew are all important jobs, and it's an important industry. It helps tell an Australian story. It helps us reflect our communities back at ourselves and question what's going on in our part of the world and how we interact with the rest of the globe. But there's obviously an economic dividend for our country. These are people's jobs. These are people's livelihoods. But these big broadcasters don't give two hoots about that. All these big broadcasters care about is reducing the amount of money they have to spend here in Australia, and I put it to you that, unless we put a check and balance back in place and unless we allow the parliament to have some oversight, when parliament's over at the end of this week and we all go off on our Easter break, this minister is going to write and give directions that say that these quotas don't need to exist, because that is what these broadcasters want from him; that is what they are lobbying hard for.
If that is not the will of the minister, then be prepared to put parliamentary oversight back in place so that we can have a discussion and a debate about how much we should be investing in and protecting Australian jobs and Australian stories. All this amendment does is reinstate parliamentary oversight. The minister is able to do a lot of things on his own. He shouldn't be able to write away Australian-made stories and junk hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs that depend on making sure Australian stories, and kids' stories in particular, are told here in Australia by Australians.
I should point out to colleagues that this bill makes no changes to any matters regarding Australian or children's content standards, including quotas. The government, as Senator Hanson-Young made reference to, is indeed undertaking an Australian and children's content review to provide advice to government on the most effective mechanisms for supporting Australian and children's screen content. Many of these mechanisms have not been looked at for more than a decade. We want to make sure that the arrangements are fit for purpose. Specifically, mechanisms to support Australian drama, documentary and children's content, including the Australian screen production incentive, are being examined. The work on the review is ongoing.
Contrary to Senator Hanson-Young's, I assume, rhetorical flourish, I don't have my pen ready to write to anyone over the parliamentary break to give directions on these matters. The standards, I should point out, that establish quotas are made by ACMA under section 122(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act. These standards are not disallowable instruments, and I'm advised by my department that this has been the case for some time—since at least 2003 and possibly earlier—and that it's not the case that this is something that came into being in 2015. The exemption from disallowance from these standards that you refer to is contained in the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015, but my advice is that it is having in regulation what was previously in primary legislation. So that exemption had been there well before. That regulation in 2015 is just the latest incarnation of something that has been in place for some time.
The rationale for this exemption is that section 128 of the Broadcasting Services Act includes the power for parliament to amend standards, which is a more comprehensive power for parliament than media disallowance. In any case, it's not correct to say that I can unilaterally amend or abolish quotas. Let me restate again that the government has made no decisions in relation to the content review, which is ongoing. The quotas are in standards that are made by ACMA, and it is ACMA that would need to make new standards to make any changes. Again, let me reiterate that the government has made no decisions in this regard. No announcements, including regarding quotas, are imminent. So there's not a basis in fact for the commentary around quotas that there has been over recent days.
Last night was the first time that Labor learnt of this amendment, which proposes a change to administrative law on a matter that is not related to the restriction of gambling promotions during live sport but, rather, is motivated by concerns about potential changes to the content quotas for Australian and children's content. Labor have had very limited opportunity to obtain advice on this amendment, which does not relate to the substantive issue before the Senate under this bill. Obviously we understand and share the concerns about Australian and children's content that this amendment is directed towards. However, we're cautious about making amendments to administrative law on the fly.
Labor note advice of the ACMA provided on notice to a question at Senate estimates last October that program standards made under section 122 of the BSA are not disallowable instruments in the usual sense, having been exempted from the general provision for disallowance under the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015. That regulation has been made in recognition of section 128 of the BSA, which vests parliament with the specific power to amend a standard determined or a code registered under part 9 of the BSA. We understand that section 128 sets a higher bar than disallowance by one house. But, based on the information to hand, we understand the following. Standards made under section 122 of the Broadcasting Services Act have been exempt from disallowance since 2003. The exemption from disallowance of these standards is not a recent invention. Prior to the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015, these exemptions were included as a table in the primary legislation. While this amendment would allow standards made under section 122 to be disallowed and may provide the Senate, for example, with an avenue to disallow program standards, it is not believed to be in the public interest. It may create uncertainty, as conceivably a standard that was disallowed could then be remade using the power in section 128 of the Broadcasting Services Act.
Labor calls on the minister to release the report of the content review so that the public can discuss and consider the evidence on the question of how best to support Australian and children's content. The report was supplied to the minister and it should be released. It was informed by the department, by the ACMA and by Screen Australia.
: Minister?
No, I was just shuffling between desks, not seeking the call.
While you were shuffling, Minister, I was making the point that you have received the report of the content review, and I called on you to release that report. We know that it's been supplied to you, and it's the careful work of the department, the ACMA and Screen Australia, and there is considerable interest. And, seeing as this matter has been raised, everyone wants to see this report as soon as possible—certainly before the budget—so that they can participate in the discussion. In addition to the release, I'd be interested in the minister making a comment on how the government has received the report.
The review is advice to government, and the work on that review continues.
I'm very heartened by that, Minister. My question is: will you release the report to allow a fuller and more public consultation in the lead-up to the budget before any announcements might be made?
You're making an assumption about the timing of any government decisions that may be informed by the work of the review.
I'm happy to be freed of my assumptions and ask you to be less oracle-like today and give me a straight answer, Minister. Will you release the report, and when might you do so?
I'd describe myself as being Delphic rather than 'oracle-like', but that's a professional disposition when it comes to suggestions that something may or may not be related to the consideration of the budget.
Even in a Greek tragedy, the Delphic projections allow the release of information, Minister. Once again, will you release the report?
When the government has something more to say on the Australian and children's content review, it will do so. But, as I indicated in my earlier contribution, that's not something that is imminent.
The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8406 revised be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak in favour of the Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018. It gives effect to recommendations 3(b) and 6 of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review to establish the Australian Signals Directorate as an independent statutory agency within the Defence portfolio. The intelligence review found that ASD's functions and responsibilities have over time changed such that greater independence within the Defence portfolio is warranted. Labor supports the transition of the ASD to an independent statutory authority and the associated amendments contained in this bill.
I note that, under this bill, staff of the ASD will not be employed by the director-general of the ASD or under the Public Service Act 1999. Under the new legislative framework, ASD staff will be Commonwealth officers and not APS employees. This is the same employment framework that applies to ASIO and ASIS employees. Labor supports this change on the basis that it will give ASD greater flexibility in attracting and retaining its highly specialised workforce.
I note that, in a submission to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill, the Community and Public Sector Union, whilst supporting the establishment of ASD as a statutory authority, raised three possible areas of concern due to the move away from the Public Service Act. These issues were: staff mobility, that is, ease of movement within other APS agencies; redeployment, that is, access to the APS redeployment policy if declared excess or potentially excess; and paid maternity leave as ASD will no longer be covered by the Public Service Act and is not currently a prescribed authority under the maternity leave act. I note that the minister addressed all three of these issues in her earlier contribution to the debate. I thank her for her explanation and assurances that no ASD employee will be disadvantaged by the transition to the statutory authority.
As Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I too rise to speak on the Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018. There is no greater responsibility for any government and for any parliament than to ensure the safety and security of its people. This bill implements a key pillar of the Australian government's reforms of our intelligence and national security landscape. These are the most significant reforms in decades. These include the establishment of a new Home Affairs portfolio, the creation of the Office of National Intelligence, and transforming the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory agency.
On 7 November 2016 the Prime Minister announced an independent review of the Australian intelligence community. The timing of the review was consistent with the 2011 Independent Review of the Intelligence Community recommendation that periodic review occur every five years. On 18 July 2017 the Prime Minister released the unclassified version of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review report. The review made 23 recommendations in relation to the structural, legislative and oversight architecture of the intelligence community, including the establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate, as I said, as an independent statutory agency within the Defence portfolio.
This bill implements the recommendations of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review. ASD's functions will be expanded to include the Australian Cyber Security Centre and allow the centre to cooperate with persons and bodies in the Intelligence Services Act 2001. ASD noted that in effect this will allow ASD to advise and assist business and the community directly, which is a long overdue and much-needed requirement in today's intelligence environment. The bill will also enable the transfer of the Computer Emergency Response Team and its functions relating to cyber policy and security from the Attorney-General's Department to ASD.
Order, Senator Reynolds. It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted. You'll be in continuation when the debate resumes.
by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator McKenzie will be absent from question time today and tomorrow, for personal reasons. In Senator McKenzie's absence, Senator Fifield will represent the Minister for Regional Communications, and Senator Fierravanti-Wells will represent the Minister for Health, the Minister for Rural Health, the Minister for Sport, the Minister for Aged Care and the Minister for Indigenous Health.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann, regarding the recent nerve agent attack in the United Kingdom. The opposition fully supports this morning's announcement by the government. Can the minister please update the Senate on actions taken by the Australian government in response to this attack?
I thank Senator Farrell for expressing the opposition's support for the government's actions. Today Australia is taking action, together with our allies and partners, in response to the recent nerve agent attack in Salisbury in the United Kingdom. Two Russian diplomats identified as undeclared intelligence officers will be expelled by the Australian government for actions inconsistent with their status, pursuant to the Vienna convention. The two officials will be directed to depart Australia within seven days.
Australia shares the UK assessment that the Russian Federation was responsible for the attack in Salisbury. There is no plausible alternative explanation for the attack, and Russia's failure to credibly respond to the legitimate UK demand for an explanation further underscores Russian culpability. The European Council has also agreed that there is no plausible alternative explanation, that the Russian Federation was responsible. We strongly support the United Kingdom, our close friend and ally, in taking this action. Our decision reflects the shocking nature of the attack, the first offensive use of chemical weapons in Europe since World War II, involving a highly lethal substance in a populated area, endangering countless other members of the community. It takes into account advice from the UK government that the substance used on 4 March was a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This attack cannot be tolerated by any sovereign nation. To do nothing would only encourage further efforts to undermine the international rules based order. We strongly support the call on Russia to disclose the full extent of its chemical weapons program, in accordance with international law. Australia remains committed to acting with its allies and partners to deter Russia's actions where they are a threat to international security.
Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.
The chemical weapon attack in the United Kingdom was a horrific criminal attack which threatens the lives of many innocent people. Can the minister advise the Senate how the government is working with Australia's allies and partners to hold those responsible to account?
I thank Senator Farrell. Australia has always stood up for the rules based order and opposed actions that violate international law. Australia's actions today have been mirrored by more than 20 countries around the world, including the United States and Canada. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are working with their counterparts in the United Kingdom and other nations to ensure that we are protecting Australia's interests and those of our international friends and partners. British Prime Minister Theresa May has emphasised in the House of Commons the solidarity between the UK and its partners in the EU, North America, NATO and her other allies, such as Australia. She said:
If the Kremlin's goal is to divide and intimidate the western alliance, then their efforts have spectacularly backfired.
Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement strongly protesting the decision by other nations to expel diplomats, calling it unfriendly, confrontational and provocative. However, Australia remains committed to acting with its allies and partners to deter Russia's actions where they are a threat to international security.
Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate how the government is working with Australia's allies and partners to ensure all countries honour the letter and the spirit of the Chemical Weapons Convention?
I thank Senator Farrell for the question. The abhorrent use of chemical weapons in the UK highlights the need for more to be done to prevent or deter future use. Australia has consistently expressed its view that the use of toxic chemicals as weapons anywhere by anyone and under any circumstances is reprehensible and should not be tolerated. Australia has also consistently and vigorously supported the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations in confronting these challenges. As a current member of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons executive council, we support it conducting its thorough and comprehensive investigations of alleged incidents. These efforts will be in addition to whatever other more immediate measures the government might yet decide are appropriate in responding to the outrageous nerve agent attack in the United Kingdom. Any power or any individuals using, enabling or authorising the use of chemical weapons must be brought to account. Australia supports the UN mandated international, impartial and independent mechanism that allows the OPCW to gather evidence of crimes that violate international humanitarian law with a view to prosecution.
I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Israel, led by Ms Sharren Haskel MK. On behalf of all senators, I would like to welcome you to the Senate.
May I also draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence of another delegation in the gallery today, the delegation from Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. On behalf of all senators, I also wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister please update the Senate on the ADF's assistance to the Northern Territory following the devastating impact of Tropical Cyclone Marcus?
I thank Senator Reynolds for her question. The ADF has made a sustained and significant contribution to the clean-up and recovery effort in Darwin following the impact of Tropical Cyclone Marcus. I understand that the cyclone was described as the most extreme weather event to have struck Darwin since Tropical Cyclone Tracy in 1974, and our thoughts are very much with the families who've been impacted by this devastating storm.
As soon as the category 2 cyclone had cleared and the request from the Northern Territory government for assistance was received, our Defence personnel began supporting the local authorities to clear debris. On average, more than 500 Army, Air Force and Navy members have been undertaking the clean-up operations across Darwin each day since 19 March. In the last couple of days, yesterday and today, ADF support has increased to 800 personnel so that we can ensure the worst of the clean-up is finished before Easter. The men and women of the ADF have been clearing roads, schools and key buildings across the city. Under Joint Task Force 659, the ADF has cleared debris from 29 schools, from five government buildings and from other facilities, including a renal clinic and the museum and the art gallery. We have also had members of the Air Force working with civil authorities to make sure that the Darwin airport is able to reopen as soon as possible.
As I mentioned yesterday, in a display of strong alliance relationships, 50 United States marines in Darwin also lent a hand, voluntarily, to the people of the community there, further illustrating that close bond that military forces so often build between themselves and the communities in which they are based. I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of the Australian and the US personnel who've supported that local community in Darwin when it was most needed.
Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for the response, and I certainly commend the efforts of the ADF and also the US personnel. Would the minister update the Senate on Defence's preparations to support potential disaster relief operations?
It's a very good question, because it is has been a tumultuous few weeks in Australia in terms of fire, flood and cyclone. And while state and territory governments have primary responsibility for responding to national disasters, including the provision of assistance to affected communities, the ADF has well-established procedures to respond to natural disasters both at home and abroad. We monitor weather events and other natural disasters across our region, and we work closely with Emergency Management Australia and international partners to assist when requested and where it's necessary.
We have Defence support staff based in capital cities around the country, and they work closely with disaster management authorities in each of those states and territories to ensure that defence is integrated into emergency planning and response. Following Defence assistance to the civil community requests from a state or territory government, we're able to deploy a range of capabilities, which include troops or equipment or technical support like an engineering team, or major platforms such as amphibious ships, or heavy transport aircraft and satellite imagery. (Time expired)
Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister also update the Senate on what other humanitarian and disaster relief support the ADF has provided recently to Australia's regional partners?
I can. As Minister Fierravanti-Wells reminded us last week, the ADF has also been part of providing emergency relief to the people of Papua New Guinea following the 7.5 magnitude earthquake there on 26 February. We have had over 100 ADF members deployed as part of Operation PNG Assist. We have contributed one C-130J Hercules, three CH-47F Chinooks, a B300 King Air light aircraft and one C-17 heavy transport aircraft, which has been part of delivering supplies to the remote and very badly affected Southern Highlands region.
In total, the ADF has delivered over 310 tonnes of emergency relief supplies and we've provided $5 million in humanitarian aid. While that immediate emergency has passed, there might be a need for follow-on relief support for affected communities in PNG from time to time. We will continue to deliver stores with the ADF efforts over the next couple of months, as required, in coordination with the government and the Australian High Commission. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. This morning, the finance minister twice refused to endorse the Prime Minister's claim that a $65 million big business tax cut will increase wages. So I would ask: how is it fair that the Prime Minister is giving a $65 billion handout to big business just so they can keep it for themselves?
The Labor Party get their numbers all muddled up. First it's a $65 million giveaway to big business; then it's a $65 billion giveaway to big business; and, in the Labor Party talking points, it is a $65 giveaway to big business. The first point I would make is that, clearly for the Labor Party, every business is a big business. If you have got one employee, you're big business. If you've got two employees, you're big business. If you have $2 million in turnover, you're big business under the Labor Party. When they talk about the $65 billion cost to the budget bottom line of business tax cuts, the Labor Party know that $30 billion of that represents tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. You know what: you could have knocked me over with a feather. Having fought it in the trenches, having fought it on the beaches, having fought it in the air—
Order! Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron, on a point of order.
It's on relevance. The question was about fairness. The minister has not gone near fairness and probably never will.
Senator Cameron, on the point of order, the minister is allowed to address parts of the question. I remind the minister of the terms of the question, but he is allowed to address parts of it and I cannot instruct him how, or what part of it, to answer.
Here's my prediction: the Labor Party will end up backing in our business tax cuts in full. You know why I know that? Because last year they were fighting them on the beaches, in the air, by the sea—the $30 billion worth of tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. Do you know what their position is today? It's their policy. They're backing it in. Last year they were arguing in this chamber that it was the worst thing ever. And what is your policy now? You're backing it in.
Clearly, people across Australia understand that, if we want Australians to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead, we need the businesses that employ them to have the best possible opportunity to be successful and profitable into the future. We want Australians today and our children and grandchildren to have the best possible opportunity to have a job and a career here in Australia. We need to ensure that our businesses are not disadvantaged compared to businesses in other parts of the world. We'll continue to fight for what is right and we continue to fight for the working families of Australia. You have sold them out. (Time expired)
Senator Carr, a supplementary question.
I refer to an article entitled 'Secret survey shows tax cuts won't go to jobs', published in this morning's Australian Financial Review. Can the minister confirm that the Business Council of Australia's secret survey found that fewer than one in five chief executives will use the Turnbull government's $65 billion handout to big business to increase wages or employ more staff?
Firstly, it is not a $65 billion handout to big business. It is leaving more of the businesses' money with them so they can reinvest it in their future growth and expansion so they can hire more Australians. I don't expect Senator Carr to understand basic economics, but if you go and look at what the shadow Treasurer used to say you'll see the shadow Treasurer knows that the burden of a higher company tax rate falls most heavily on workers. Why does a company tax cut lead to stronger wages growth? As there is more investment, stronger growth and more competition for workers in the marketplace, wages will go up. The key ingredient for stronger wages growth—and this is economic orthodoxy 101—is always more competition for workers and a depleting excess supply of labour.
Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.
Given that the finance minister has refused to endorse the Prime Minister's claim—and has again done that just today—and business leaders have themselves refused to agree that they will use the Turnbull government's handout to big business to benefit workers, will the Turnbull government now abandon its $65 billion big business tax cut and instead use taxpayers' money to achieve fairer economic growth?
We will continue to fight for the working families of Australia and to ensure that families of Australia have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. On our economic agenda, including our plan to ensure Australian businesses are not disadvantaged compared to businesses in other parts of the world, we'll help ensure that there is more investment, that there are more jobs and, as we have more jobs and there's more competition for workers, that there'll be higher wages. I can assure the Senate that this government will continue to fight for the working families of Australia. Nine out of 10 working Australians work in a private sector business.
The Labor Party wants to keep disadvantaging Australian businesses. The Labor Party wants to keep Australian businesses at a disadvantage when it comes to competition with businesses in other parts of the world. The Labor Party is quite happy to put investment and jobs at risk and it will stand condemned for it.
My question is also to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. In seeking to justify the proposed cuts to the company tax rate and in trying to support the crossbench, the government has been saying that the benefits of a tax cut will trickle down and that workers will see their wages rise. Senator Cormann, you're aware that Morgan Stanley recently did a survey across the Dow and the Nasdaq of US companies that have recently had a tax cut, and 44 per cent of them said they will use that money to buy back shares or they will return it to shareholders. This is no surprise. Did your department, the Treasury, conduct its own assessment, surveys or consultations with the 130 Business Council of Australia members or other businesses to find out what they were going to do with these funds? Were they going to keep it or give it to Australian workers?
On our side of politics, we understand that policies that support the free market help deliver the best outcomes for individuals, their families and the communities they live in. On this side of parliament, we understand the historical failure of socialism. We understand that socialism makes everybody poorer. And you know who it makes poorer first? Low-income earners have the most to lose from a socialist agenda. We understand that the modern Labor Party and the Greens are all in favour of going back to the old class-warfare, socialist agenda of the past, but, let me tell you, history around the world has proven—
I have a point of order on relevance, Mr President. I know Senator Cormann's on a roll today, but he hasn't come anywhere near my question about: did they do a survey or consultation with Business Council members before they adopted their policy?
As I constantly remind those who ask questions, ministers are allowed to answer parts of questions and preambles to questions and to address the complete terms of the question asked. I cannot instruct the minister which part of a question to answer.
On this side of politics, we don't believe it's the job of the government to run private-sector businesses. It's not up to us to tell private-sector businesses what to do. Senator Carr thinks it's the job of government to run private-sector businesses and sort of nationalise them. We know that that leads to inferior outcomes for people around Australia. We happen to believe that encouraging individuals to work hard, stretch themselves and be the best they can be, and that supporting the free market, free enterprise, reward for effort and risk taking are actually the key to making sure that we can maximise our living standards in a sustainable fashion. And don't take my word for it. There is evidence around the world that that is, in fact, the truth.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Cameron! Senator Cormann, please continue. I was calling Senator Cameron to order.
Well, if you want to see the disastrous effects of socialism on the quality of life of individuals and their families, look no further than Eastern Europe. I know that the Labor Party doesn't like to hear it, but the truth is: even if you put yourself ever so incrementally on a bad, negative trajectory, you will end up in a very bad destination. We want people to end up in a good destination. We believe in freedom. We believe in— (Time expired)
Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question.
Does the minister accept that, if a company makes a rational decision to buy back its shares or return money to shareholders, it's a decision that they have nothing better to do with the funds? So why do you persist with this myth that they are going to reinvest that money back into the economy and into workers, which will lead to wage rises?
Sadly, you don't understand basic economics. The truth is that every individual business will make a decision on how they can best position themselves for a successful future. The implication of your question is: if we make it harder for businesses to be successful and to compete, do you think they'll employ more people? Do you think that a less profitable business will employ more people? Let me tell you: less successful, less profitable businesses, businesses with their arms tied behind their backs because they've got to compete with businesses that have the benefit of lower taxes, will hire fewer people. And that means higher unemployment. Higher unemployment means that there is less competition for workers, which means that there will actually be lower wages than otherwise would be the case. Your recipe of opposing business tax cuts is a recipe for less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages. Our agenda is about more investment, more jobs and higher wages.
Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question.
It seems that the minister's agenda is higher share prices and higher CEO bonuses for their big business mates. Now that the BCA has been caught with the yellow sticky tape down its trousers and your biggest cheerleader is in disgrace, are you happy that the Labor Party has fallen in behind your tax cuts today?
Here is where the bipartisanship between the Greens and the coalition comes back together. The Labor Party has lost all credibility. In government, there was no-one more eloquent in making the case for business tax cuts than Bill Shorten. When they were in government there was nobody more eloquent in criticising the Greens' position to limit business tax cuts to small business. But of course then they opposed it because—you know what?—it became our policy in the 2016-17 budget. They actually know, in their heart of hearts, that making sure that Australia can be globally competitive and our businesses can be competitive is the right thing to do by Australia. But Bill Shorten isn't interested in what is in the public interest. Bill Shorten is only interested in the politics of the situation. But of course he has backed in our business tax cuts for businesses to $50 million in turnover, which he fought tooth and nail last year. Nobody can take Bill Shorten seriously. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. This week the government introduced into parliament marine park plans for Commonwealth waters. Would the minister advise the chamber of the economic impacts of these plans on regional communities?
I thank Senator Martin for his question, which may be his first question. Indeed, I acknowledge his first question in the Australian Senate.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
In relation to the issue of Commonwealth marine parks and particularly the economic impact, I'm happy to inform the senator that these plans are critically important for all marine users—commercial and recreational fishers, the dive industry, aquarium businesses and tourism operators. Compared to the previous Labor government's proposed plans, the coalition's plans halve the economic impact to commercial fishers, including, in the senator's home state of Tasmania, entities like Petuna Seafoods, which operates through Commonwealth waters along the east coast and beyond and employs some 264 people. Our management plans for Australian marine parks give them certainty over their fishing grounds—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
Order on my left! Senator Pratt!
and ensure that a reputable, best-practice fishing business, like so many others across Australia, will get the certainty that it deserves.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senators Pratt and McAllister!
In addition to commercial fishing, these new management plans give greater recognition to the rights of some five million recreational fishers across Australia, individuals who support a wider economy around tackle and bait shops, as well as boating and charter fishing businesses. I note that tourism operators across the country have welcomed the mixed-use nature of our protections for the marine environment, which indeed still provide strong, robust protections. Ultimately, we hope this Senate gives the certainty to Australian marine operators that they deserve as well as the certainty of protection that the marine park plans we have laid in this place provide across our critical waterways.
Senator Martin, a supplementary question?
I do have a supplementary question. Minister, what factors were considered in the development of these plans?
I'm pleased to inform the senator that the government has undertaken more than three years of consultation. This included an independent scientific review and public fora, holding well over 200 meetings around Australia and receiving some 130,000 written submissions. We've listened to that stakeholder feedback and have taken a targeted approach to zoning that protects more conservation features, like canyons, seamounts and reefs, in the most protective zones, compared with what was proposed back in 2012. In fact, it protects some 344 highly important critical features, compared to Labor's 331, but does so in a way that reduces the impact on commercial and recreational fishers. These plans will protect important habitats and species across our marine parks and will ensure, through careful targeting, that we not only improve conservation outcomes but reduce the impact on marine users.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Cameron! Senator Martin, a final supplementary question?
Minister, what impact will these plans have on recreational and professional fishing sectors?
As I've emphasised, these plans give certainty to recreational fishers that they will have access to 97 per cent of Commonwealth waters—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order on both sides!
within 100 kilometres of the coast and to 80 per cent of the marine park network overall. This is an increase in access, up from just 64 per cent under Labor, and represents an additional 400,000 square kilometres accessible for recreational fishing. But this is done by careful management and by ensuring higher levels of protection for the most highly valued areas of our marine parks, whilst ensuring access to those who rightly deserve it, where it can be done sustainably. Equally, when it comes to commercial fishing, we recognise the significant role of this billion-dollar industry to Australia, but we want to make sure their access is restricted in a way that sensibly allows continued investment in that industry whilst protecting key ecological and environmental factors in our marine environments.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Welfare groups including Anglicare, Oxfam Australia, the Salvation Army and the Australian Council of Social Service have said:
We believe that a company tax cut is a mistake while almost 3 million people live in poverty.
How is it fair that, at the same time, the Turnbull government's freeze on family tax benefits will leave a family with a household income of $60,000 a year and two primary-school aged children around $440 a year worse off, while giving big business a $65 billion handout?
The reasons that we are giving company tax cuts—and what we are proposing to do—is to create more jobs in the economy. And the best form of welfare is a job. We all know that. You keep saying that's the situation, but you don't actually believe it. When it comes to pensioners, we won't be introducing policies that are going to hurt them and make them worse off. We are not going to increase taxes on part-pensioners; we are not going to do it to self-funded retirees. This government is making sure that we have a sustainable budget, which means that we will be able to look after those people who are most in need. We will also encourage people off welfare and into work. This is the best thing that we can do. When it comes to pensioners, we will not be introducing the types of policies that those opposite have just released, which will make pensioners and part-pensioners worse off. All you want to do is tax and spend. We want to make sure that we get people working, that we encourage people to work, that we are encouraging companies to employ more people. That way we can make sure that we won't be doing to pensioners and part-pensioners what you opposite will be doing to them if you get onto the Treasury benches. But those opposite have backflipped, but they bungled their own backflip. They can't even execute a humiliating retreat properly. (Time expired)
The CEO of the St Vincent de Paul Society National Council, Dr John Falzon, says:
It is unconscionable to pursue company tax cuts at the same time as slashing essential government benefits and services affecting people on the lowest incomes.
Is Dr Falzon correct?
I haven't seen what Dr Falzon said, but, as I was saying, you can't even execute a humiliating retreat properly. Last week the Leader of the Opposition said his policy, his tax grab—
Order, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Senator Farrell on a point of order.
Relevance is the point of order. It was a very simple question: we are asking the minister to comment on Dr Falzon's comments. Can the minister please direct herself to those?
As I've said before, ministers can be relevant to part of the question. I remind the minister of the question, as you have done, and note she has 40 seconds remaining in the answer.
I haven't seen what Dr Falzon said, but I will take that on notice and, if the Minister for Social Services has something that he wishes to say in response to Dr Falzon's comments, I'm sure I'll be instructed to provide it to the Senate. As I was saying, last week Mr Shorten said that his policy would not hurt pensioners, but now he admits his policy will inflict a $3.3 billion tax cut, at least, on pensioners. This is chaotic policy on the run. What I'd like to do, Mr President, is take those opposite back to— (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left. Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question.
Dr Cassandra Goldie, the Chief Executive of ACOSS, says:
Genuine tax reform would close shelters and loopholes in the tax system which high income-earners and many companies have taken advantage of for years to minimise tax.
Why is the Turnbull government prioritising a $65 billion tax cut for big business over meaningful tax reform which creates a fairer tax system?
I haven't seen Cassandra Goldie's comments, but, again, I will take that part of the question on notice and refer that matter to the Minister for Social Services. If he has any response to Dr Goldie's comments, I'm sure he will instruct me to provide them to the Senate.
Labor's election policy from 20 years ago, in 1998, when Labor was on a unity ticket with John Howard, reads:
Low income older people will be able to use their imputation credits even if they do not pay tax. This will mean that they can effectively 'cash out' the value of their imputation credits and increase their disposable incomes.
So I ask those opposite about that policy then. What was an act of compassion and fairness then, according to those opposite, is now a tax rort, a loophole and a scandal that has to be put to an end. They're the scandal, and the Australian public will not believe them. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Last weekend, the National Farmers Federation launched their target of growing Australia's agriculture sector into a $100 billion industry. What is the coalition government doing to support this vision, and what are the government's key achievements in agriculture?
I thank Senator Williams for his question and recognise Senator 'Wacka' Williams's longstanding interest in seeing the growth of Australian agriculture. I can say that the federal government fully support the NFF's vision to grow Australian agriculture to an industry of more than $100 billion, and we are taking action to help them achieve that too. Our agricultural industry is already one of the finest in the world. It produces more than $60 billion a year of value for our country. Of course, most of that—about 70 per cent of that—is exported overseas. The key to growing our agricultural industry further is to grow those overseas markets, to grow those customers and to give more opportunities for Australian farmers to do so.
That is why we as a government have concluded five trade agreements: three with China, Korea and Japan; the TPP, recently concluded; and a recently concluded agreement with Peru. All of these agreements are giving Australian farmers more opportunity to grow more food, to sell more products and to employ more Australians on their farms. This is already paying off. Just to give one example in regard to the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement, since that was signed a few years ago, lamb exports to Korea are up 89 per cent, cheese exports to Korea are up 39 per cent, orange exports to Korea are up 57 per cent and beef exports to Korea—admittedly off a larger base—are up 17 per cent. This is why Fiona Simson, the president of the NFF, has said that the government's commitment to pursuing preferential trade agreements could largely be credited for the positive position agriculture find itself in today. We will continue to back Australian farmers. We will continue to work hard for their interests here and overseas so that we can continue to see the strong growth in our farming sector that gives great benefits to farmers and the communities in which they live.
Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister. Minister, what is the government doing to support water infrastructure and further expand the agricultural sector?
I thank Wacka Williams for his question again.
It is Senator Williams.
As Senator Williams well knows, to expand that food production to meet the growing needs of Asia and those markets we're accessing overseas we need more water too. We're standing here today in the country's largest food bowl, the Murray-Darling Basin. It's benefited from the use of water, and we want to have that around the country as well.
I can see in the gallery Councillor Tom Gilmore and Councillor Bob Manning from up in North Queensland. They want to support water infrastructure in North Queensland too. That's why we're supporting the business case for the Nullinga Dam up there in Queensland, and that's why we're backing the Rookwood Weir in the Fitzroy Basin. That's why we've been backing the Rookwood Weir for over 500 days. I welcome the Queensland government's commitment. We will get that weir built, and we will get agriculture moving in this country.
Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.
I ask the minister: what is standing in the way of this growth of our vital agriculture sector?
It is overall a very positive story for Australian agriculture, with those opportunities and those growing markets. But it's unfortunate that some state governments are passing laws to restrict the ability of farmers to increase food production. In particular, the Queensland government has introduced draconian laws which strip property rights from farmers and take away their rights—
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Order! Senator Williams on a point of order.
I'm trying to hear the minister and I've got this Scottish echo in my left ear. Could you please keep him quiet, Mr President?
Senator Cameron, I ask you to be quiet. You have been vocal this afternoon. We missed you on Monday last week. Are you rising on the point of order, Senator Cameron?
On the point of order, how did he know it was me?
He has telepathic powers! Senator Canavan, continue your answer.
As I was saying, we support the property rights of farmers to develop their own land. We support the ability of farmers to take these opportunities. To do so, sometimes they need to be able to clear their land, flatten it out and laser level it to grow food, and we support farmers doing that. But up in Queensland a deal has been done with the Greens to strip away property rights. That's why a farmer like Blair Angus, of Clermont, is saying that one-fifth of his farm is being stripped away from him because of these laws, and he is getting not a dollar in return—no compensation. It's an absolute outrage.
I draw the attention of senators to the presence in the public gallery of the former Premier of New South Wales, Mr Barrie Unsworth. Welcome to the parliament and, in particular, the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to Senator Fierravanti-Wells, standing in for Senator McKenzie, representing the Minister for Health. Dementia Australia offers a valuable in-home counselling service for people affected with dementia. This has always been a free service funded by the federal government. My question is: how come it's free in most states but, in recent months, costs $5 in Victoria? We called Dementia Australia in Melbourne and were told, 'The government makes us charge that fee.' And the DA hotline told us, 'The fee applies to Victoria but not in New South Wales.' To add insult to injury, how come the waiting time for a counsellor visit in Victoria is six weeks, which is longer than in other states where the service is free?
Senator Hinch, I don't have a brief on that, but I will take your question on notice and provide an answer as soon as I can. Thank you.
Senator Hinch, a supplementary question?
Minister, could you please take this question on notice too. What happens when the person with dementia, who may not manage their own finances, doesn't have $5 in the house when visited, and what if $5 is unaffordable to a person who is on a pension and has significant health issues? Was the government even aware of the situation?
Again, I'll take that on notice and provide you with the information as soon as possible.
Senator Hinch, do you have a final supplementary question?
I forfeit my final supplementary question on the grounds that secondary supplementary questions are a waste of time.
A point you have made previously during question time, Senator Hinch.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Over the last two years, wages have grown by only four per cent while company profits have increased by a massive 32 per cent. This morning, the finance minister twice refused to endorse the Prime Minister's claim that a $65 billion big-business tax cut will increase wages. I give the minister another opportunity. Will the minister echo the Prime Minister and guarantee an increase in real wage growth as a result of its $65 billion handout to big business?
Labor actually has this completely wrong. If anyone in Australia has made the case day in, day out for two years now that a more competitive business tax rate will help drive more investment, create more jobs and drive stronger wages growth, it's me. Of course a lower company tax rate will drive additional investment, help us create more jobs and lead to stronger wages growth. At no time has anybody made that case more passionately and more energetically than me, including this morning. So you are completely and utterly misrepresenting the position that I've put. The Labor Party is just trying to create a distraction. The Labor Party has decided today to 100 per cent endorse the first three years of our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. After having fought tooth and nail to stop us from lowering the business tax rate for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million, you have now rolled over and accepted that that is good policy. Why is it good policy? It is because, if you leave businesses with more of their own money, they are able to invest more in their future growth and expansion, which means that they can hire more people. As they hire more people and there is more competition for workers, there will be stronger wages growth. That is economics 101. That is fundamental economic orthodoxy. The reason we are concerned about your position is that, if you make it harder for business to be successful, if you put business in Australia at a disadvantage compared to business in other parts of the world, there will be less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages, whereas we want more investment, more jobs and higher wages, and that is what our business tax cuts will deliver.
Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.
Given companies are already seeing massive profits, while workers are suffering under record low wage growth, what rate of wage growth will the government guarantee as a result of its proposed $65 billion handout to big business?
I know that the Labor Party these days is into the Soviet-style planned economy, where you centrally prescribe everything in the economy, but let me tell you: that is not the way we work. We want to give business the best possible opportunity to be successful so they can hire more Australians and pay them better wages. And guess what: our plan is actually working. More than 420,000 new jobs were created in the last 12 months. And guess what: wages growth is picking up, as you would expect. Yes, there's been a period of lower global growth, there's been a period of massive transition—
Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator McAllister, on a point of order?
The point of order goes to relevance. The minister was asked very directly around the rate of wage increase that would be guaranteed by the coalition, and he is refusing to answer.
I think the minister is relevant. The minister can't be instructed how to answer the question, as long as he is directly relevant to parts or all of the question asked. I call the minister.
I'm happy to confirm for Senator McAllister that, on the coalition side, we don't subscribe to the socialist planned economy model, where the government centrally prescribes what the wages in the economy should be. We happen to believe, if you help business be more successful, they'll hire more people and they'll have to pay them more in wages because there is more competition for workers. (Time expired)
Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question.
Given the minister refuses to guarantee the government's $65 billion handout to big business will result in an increase in real wage growth, why should working Australians believe the Turnbull government's empty rhetoric, when clearly not even his own minister does?
I would advise the honourable senator not to just accept all questions from the tactics committee, and then perhaps, if he is given questions by the tactics committee, to actually listen to the answer, because that question completely ignores everything that I've said so far.
Firstly, $30 billion out of that $65 billion you are backing in. That's No. 1. Let me tell you something else. For you to claim a $65 billion tax giveaway to big business, you must think that 100 per cent of all businesses in Australia are big businesses. Do we think that 100 per cent of all businesses are big?
Government senators: No!
No, they're not. Do we want all businesses in Australia to aspire to become a big business?
Government senators interjecting—
Order on my right!
Yes, we do. We want every small business to become a bigger business and we want—
Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Collins, on a point of order.
Mr President, the point of order is relevance. The minister has been asked now three times, 'What rate of growth?' and he refuses to answer.
The minister is being directly relevant to the question as asked. Senator Cormann.
I mean really—all hope is lost for the modern-day Labor Party. When they don't understand when I say that we are not centrally prescribing— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister outline for the Senate what measures the Turnbull government is taking to enhance consumer experiences with the National Broadband Network?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left! Senator Carr! Senator Cameron! Can we at least hear the minister begin an answer before the interjections start?
Thank you, Senator Smith, for your ongoing interest in the NBN. I will just quickly touch on Senator Smith's home state of Western Australia. The rollout is full steam ahead in WA, with over 70 per cent of premises in the west being able to connect to the network and close to 400,000 premises having an active service—a far cry from what was bequeathed to us by those opposite when they left office.
Improving the NBN consumer experience is a key priority for the government, and we have taken action. Through the Australian Communications and Media Authority, this government is putting in place tougher consumer protections for households and businesses switching to the NBN. Telco customers do deserve to have their complaints dealt with quickly and effectively, and these new rules will specify how complaints must be managed, including time frames for response and resolution. Importantly, they will help address the handballing of complaints between telcos and the NBN.
I'm pleased to let you know that in coming months further requirements will be placed on retailers to make sure that services are confirmed as working following an installation. Also the risk of being left without any fixed-line service will be reduced as retailers will be required to reconnect a home or business to their old service if the NBN isn't available straightaway for any reason.
We're going to put the phone back on.
Senator Carr!
Well done!
Senator Carr!
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
Senator Carr!
The government is working with retailers, the NBN, ACMA and the ACCC to make sure that the customer experience is more seamless.
I ask senators when they're called to order to at least pause before their next interjection. Senator Smith, a supplementary question.
Can the minister update the Senate on any other measures that will improve the quality of service that consumers can expect from the National Broadband Network?
Last year the government took action on a range of fronts to improve the consumer experience. I'll just list a few of the measures that are now in effect. Firstly, the ACCC has kicked off its Monitoring Broadband Australia program to independently test and publicly report on speeds being experienced by broadband consumers. Additionally, the ACCC advice to retailers on how they should advertise NBN broadband speeds has had a dramatic and immediate impact. All retailers are now including typical peak-hour speeds in their advertising and marketing materials. NBN is also now publishing a key performance report on its website. This information includes installations completed right the first time, appointments met, network congestion measures and monthly rollout progress. We are having an enhanced consumer experience and enhanced transparency, which can only be good for consumers.
Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister outline what impact the new National Broadband Network pricing structure has had on the take-up of superfast broadband?
NBN's new pricing structure has discounted the cost of capacity and made the 50-megabit speed tier more affordable. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in network congestion and much greater take-up of the higher speed services. NBN analysis shows that congestion has fallen from an average of more than four hours a week down to less than 15 minutes per week. That means that superfast speeds are available even through the peak evening hours across the network. Since December last year, more than 750,000 NBN users have moved up to the 50-megabit plan or been connected to fast broadband for the first time at that speed tier.
Most major retailers have responded very positively to NBN's pricing changes by passing on the discounts to their customers. As a consequence we've seen a substantial increase in the proportion of users taking up the 50-megabit service. For these NBN users, their internet speeds are around five times as fast as the pre-NBN ADSL network.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the letter from big business to senators advocating for the Turnbull government's $65 billion tax cut for big business. Can the minister confirm that less than eight per cent of the BCA's member CEOs are prepared to increase investment in Australia if the Turnbull government is able to pass its $65 billion tax cut for big business?
Firstly, I thought that was a very important intervention by some of the most senior business leaders and some of the biggest employers around Australia. The Labor Party doesn't seem to care about jobs. We on this side of the parliament care about jobs. We understand that some of our biggest employers in Australia started as small businesses. Take Qantas, for example. Qantas started with three employees in Longreach, in regional Queensland, and today employs 30,000 people and is engaged in a fiercely competitive industry globally. It is an iconic Australian brand. With your decision to oppose business tax cuts, you are deliberately putting this business at an additional competitive disadvantage.
They don't pay tax.
The ignorant Senator Watt says that they pay no tax. They made $3 billion worth of losses, and you don't pay tax when you make a loss. What Labor doesn't understand is that investment decisions today are based on your expectations of future opportunity to make a profit.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The question went directly to the proposition that eight per cent of the BCA's CEOs are prepared to increase investment. The minister was asked a direct question on that and has come nowhere near that. I'd ask you to ask him to return to the question.
The minister, in my view, is being relevant to the terms of the question asked, which included reference to another document.
Alan Jones is one of the signatories to the letter. Alan Jones and his management team have been able to turn the situation around at Qantas, and they are now profitable again—and, of course, they will pay tax once the accumulated losses of the past have been paid down. But, if we put them at a competitive disadvantage, it will directly impact on the job security of 30,000 Qantas employees and directly impact on the opportunities for the 3,000 small- and medium-size businesses that supply goods and services to Qantas. It would also directly impact on the job security of the many Australians who work for the 3,000 businesses that supply those goods and service to Qantas. Qantas are one of our champion businesses, and you want to make it harder for them to be successful. You want to put the job security of employees in businesses such as Qantas at risk. That is the implication of your decision to stand in the way of big tax cuts.
Mr President, on a point of order: can I ask you to have a look at the ruling that you just made that, if the opposition mentions a letter and a specific part of the letter, the specific question is then not relevant because it was in a letter. Surely that is not an appropriate position.
I am happy to review the Hansard and come back to you, Senator Cameron. But a reference to an external document is incorporated in part of the question, so the minister may address that part of the question as well. Senator Ketter, on a supplementary question.
Can the minister confirm that, of the 10 CEOs who signed the letter, five lead companies did not pay company tax last year?
I'm really shocked at how ignorant the Labor Party is in 2018. Senator Ketter is from Queensland. So let me go back to my Queensland example of Qantas. Qantas started with three employees in Longreach, and today they employ 30,000 people.
They pay no tax.
'They pay no tax,' says the other big champion for Queensland. That's because they made $3 billion worth of losses.
Senator Collins, on a point of order.
Again it's on relevance. This question could not be more clear and direct, and the minister is going nowhere near it. The question asked the minister to confirm that, of the 10 CEOs who signed the letter, five lead companies did not pay company tax last year. Can he confirm that or not?
Senator Collins, on the point of order: I was listening very carefully to the minister and, at least in my listening, he seemed to be addressing that very point with respect to one particular organisation. I'm listening carefully.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator Collins, you know that I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question.
The reason that company tax cuts are important for the future success of even businesses that are making a loss today or which did so yesterday is that businesses will make investment decisions on their expectations of future profitability. They will assess their future opportunity to make a profit. They will consider the future opportunity of after-tax profits, and they will make investment decisions today on that basis. They will make decisions today on whether or not they will expand their business, which could go to whether they will hire more Australians. As they make decisions to hire more Australians, they put more competitive pressure on wages—and that is how wages go up. These are basic fundamentals. (Time expired)
Senator Ketter, a final supplementary question.
I'll try again. What guarantee have these 10 CEOs provided that, if the Turnbull government succeeds in giving big business a $65 billion tax cut, their workers will get a pay rise? In what form has this guarantee been provided?
I can give you two guarantees. One, if there is additional investment, which is, of course, the result of lower company taxes—not if but when—
If! If! If!
There will be if you pass the tax cuts in full. Additional investment is contingent on the Senate passing our business tax cuts in full. If the Senate passes the business tax cuts in full, there will be more investment into Australia, which will generate more jobs and drive stronger wages growth. I can absolutely guarantee that. Do you know what else I can guarantee? If we continue to put businesses at a competitive disadvantage, particularly bigger businesses, there will be less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages. When there are fewer jobs, the unemployment queues will increase and there will be less competition for workers; and when there's less competition for workers, business only has to pay less to secure their services. We want business to have to pay more to secure their services.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Can the minister advise the Senate on how the Turnbull government is delivering on its commitments in helping to keep Australians safe through the Indo-Pacific Health Security Initiative?
In the 12 months to December last year, there were 10 million movements out of Australia. Two million Australians visited the Pacific island countries and Oceania and another 3.1 million Australians visited South-East Asian countries. Whilst the Indo-Pacific region has some of the most stunning and beautiful tourist destinations in the world, they also have, unfortunately, high rates of communicable diseases—for example, malaria, dengue fever, tuberculosis—which have debilitating impacts on individuals and their communities. Whilst Australians travelling abroad are hoping to have an enjoyable holiday, some of them do, regrettably, pick up some of these diseases, which are preventable. What's worse, they then bring them home, where they are a significant burden on our health system. There is also the potential for interaction with other people in Australia. Therefore, it's important that we do spend taxpayers' money through our overseas development assistance to help them.
At the last federal election we committed $100 million over five years to establish a regional health security partnership fund. Last year, we not only met this figure but exceeded it by an additional $200 million. This represents the largest health and medical research commitment that we have ever made under Australia's Official Development Assistance. By trebling our commitment, we recognise that substantial funding, expertise and vision are required to manage some of the major health threats to our region. This initiative is being led by the new Indo-Pacific Centre for Health Security, which will support efforts to avoid and contain infectious disease threats in our region.
Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.
Can the minister explain how the government's health security focus is targeting tuberculosis?
Today, I joined other parliamentary colleagues at the World Tuberculosis Day parliamentary breakfast, where it was highlighted very starkly that, despite being a curable disease, tuberculosis is the world's leading infectious killer. Someone dies from TB every 18 seconds. We are surrounded by countries that have TB. Twelve of the world's 30 highest TB-burden countries are located in our region and account for nearly half of all cases of drug-resistant TB and TB deaths worldwide. Papua New Guinea, which is four kilometres to our north, has a major TB problem and, in particular, a drug-resistant TB problem. That not only puts PNG at risk; it also puts Australians at risk. (Time expired)
Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister outline to the Senate the importance of investing in health security in our region?
What we are doing is keeping Australians safe and healthy. The World Health Organization has told us it is not a case of 'if' but 'when' there will be another major pandemic, when that pandemic will strike. Our health security is linked inextricably to the health security of our Indo-Pacific neighbours. In an interconnected world, diseases such as Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome, Zika and tuberculosis do not respect our borders. A major epidemic could potentially devastate communities; result in loss of life; disrupt tourism, trade, investment and people movement; and set back our region's economic growth and development considerably. Therefore, it's important that our investments are directly targeted towards mitigating this risk.
I'd like to acknowledge the Tangentyere women from Central Australia in the public gallery. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Can the minister confirm the Turnbull government's $715 million cut to public hospitals from 2017-20 is equivalent to 2,010 nurses a year, 198,000 cataract extractions, 27,000 knee replacements or 118,000 births?
I thank the senator for her question. Contrary to the lies that you have just peddled, the truth is that funding for public hospitals—
Order! I ask you to withdraw that particular imputation.
I withdraw that. Contrary to the false information that Senator McCarthy has just indicated to us, the truth is that funding for public hospitals will continue to grow. The truth is that funding for hospitals is increasing to record levels every year. Commonwealth funding for public hospital services has increased from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 to a record $22.7 billion in 2020-21. All up, our government is committed to investing more than $103.3 billion over the next four years. This means that Commonwealth funding continues to increase for all states and territories.
And can I remind those opposite that in the six years under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments they only delivered $73.4 billion dollars. In contrast, as I have indicated, we are delivering more than $103 billion over the next four years. Of course, when those opposite were in government, all that Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxon were concerned about were the photo shoots in front of the hospitals. Remember 'Dr Rudd' and 'Nurse Roxon' in their white coats? That's all you were interested in. Their so-called health reform was them travelling around the countryside dressing up as 'Dr Rudd' and 'Nurse Roxon' and finding the next photo opportunity. You visited 100 hospitals; every morning the department of health would get a phone call saying which hospital they were going to. That's all it was for you!
Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?
In 2016-17, emergency departments saw a record number of people, with 7.8 million presentations. People are waiting longer than ever for critical elective surgery under the Turnbull government. Minister, how much longer will Australians have to wait for critical elective surgery as a result of the Turnbull government's most recent cut to public hospitals?
I don't accept the premise of your question, Senator. The government recently put forward a generous funding offer to the states and territories which would deliver $30 billion in new funding to public hospitals over five years from 2020, providing almost $128 billion over five years from 2020. It will see tens of millions of services for Australians in our public hospitals, supporting thousands of new frontline doctors and nurses in those hospitals. Every year would be a record funding amount for every state and territory. We welcome the decision by the New South Wales and Western Australian governments to sign on to an agreement. The former hospital agreement, developed under Labor, allowed for uncapped funding. Labor then refused to back its unfunded $57 billion hospital promise, finding just $2 billion— (Time expired)
Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question.
The latest cut to public hospitals represents just one-ninetieth of the $65 billion handout to big business. Isn't it clear the Turnbull government is more interested in helping the big end of town than ensuring Australia's public hospitals are properly funded?
If anyone is short-changing patients, it's the Leader of the Opposition, whose phantom hospital funding plan only accounts for four per cent of their $57 billion. In Victoria, maybe the Andrews government should spend taxpayers' money on hospitals rather than rorts for votes and instead of putting politics first by turning his back on more than $7 billion of additional funding from this government for hospitals.
As you come from the Northern Territory, Senator McCarthy, I want to add some information which may be of value to you. Commonwealth funding for public hospital services in the Northern Territory has increased from $135 million in 2013-14 to $316 million in 2020-21, or 134.8 per cent over this period. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I have a small amount of information to add to my response to Senator Hanson from question time yesterday. In response to her primary question, I am advised that Australian support provided in funding for the people of Palestine has strict controls to ensure the funding is not used to support terrorism, terrorists or their families. I'm advised that the view of the government is that withdrawal of funding to the Palestinian people would risk exacerbating social, economic and humanitarian distress and potentially drive more people into the ranks of extremists.
In relation to her second question, I note that the government is strongly opposed to educational material supporting violence and extremism. Australian contributions to UNRWA, in part, support the use of textbooks assessed through the US funded curriculum review process within UNRWA. It is imperative that UNRWA maintain neutrality in all of its operations, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has reinforced this directly with UNRWA as recently as November of last year. In relation to Senator Hanson's second supplementary question—as I advised yesterday, the government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are regularly briefed by a range of organisations, including think tanks.
I have some additional information to provide to Senator Hinch. He asked me a question in relation to dementia. Dementia is a key challenge facing Australia and the world, but innovation holds the key. We have committed $200 million over five years to 2019 to boost research into the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure of dementia. This includes the establishment of the National Health and Medical Research Council National Institute for Dementia Research. We have also committed more than $30 million between 2012 and 2017 on projects aimed at addressing many of the recommendations of the House of Representatives and Senate inquiries. These include improving the timeliness of dementia diagnosis, training in best-practice dementia care and providing information and support services to people living with dementia. If I have additional information, I will provide it to the Senate tomorrow.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Fierravanti-Wells) to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today relating to proposed company tax cuts.
I rise to note the answers given by Senator Cormann and the pathetic, bumbling effort by Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Imagine if the whole of Australia had nothing better to do than sit and listen to the stupid debate going on here today, you would think that for some strange reason the government can't wait to throw $65 billion tax cuts around to those who deserve it. I want to speak as an ex-small-business person as opposed to a multinational foreign invader. I know how hard it is to turn a quid in Australia when times are tough, but I also know the benefits that can flow from hard work. But I cannot believe that this government can mislead the Australian public into thinking that the $65 billion tax cut is going to help all Australians. I'll tell you why I say that. One only has to go to the Financial Reviewthis morning. We all know that there was a secret survey done by the Business Council of Australia. They surveyed the top end of town, make no mistake. This is not the battlers; this is not the men and women who have fought like heck to rise up from the shop floor, invest in a truck or invest in a little shop, work their way through and put everything on the line. This is the top end of the town—the corporations. The top 130 CEOs—these are not my words; these are the words used by The AustralianFinancial Reviewwere surveyed in a secret survey back in January, I think it was. The Fin Review said:
The chief executives were asked which of four options they would nominate as their preferred response to the company tax cut in Australia.
I'll explain the four options to the Senate and those listening: (1) returning funds to shareholders; (2) more investment; (3) increasing the wages of their existing workforce—a pretty honourable thing to do; or (4) increasing employment. We've heard the government going on and on about increased wages and increased employment opportunities. Surprise, surprise! More than 80 per cent of the top 130 CEOs who are members of the Business Council of Australia nominated one of the first two options—not improving employment and not improving wages, but one of the first two. Why should we be so shocked? Only 16 to 17 per cent nominated higher wages or employment. How many employees does that translate to from 16 or 17 per cent of the top 130 companies in Australia?
You see, I'm all for raising wages. On this side of the chamber, all we talk about is raising wages. We also talk about raising opportunity. I'm an ex-small-business man, which is more than half of that mob over there could claim. My wife and I did it hard. We reaped the rewards. We built our little business, we built our home and we raised our kids. We value the work ethic that was instilled into both of us by our parents when we were young: 'Work hard, get paid properly, keep working hard, bring up the kids and do the right thing.' But listen to the nonsense coming from over there! To think that international raiders like ExxonMobil did a filthy, dirty, grubby deal with five casuals in a different state to create an enterprise agreement so they could go back and undermine their workforce in Longford, where there were 280 people employed! I'm not from Longford; I'm from the west. There were 280 people employed in Longford. It's a community. There are sporting communities, the kids go to school together and the workers have barbecues together. They're friends and neighbours and they have been for many, many years. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil, who have enjoyed massive profits in oil and gas coming from the Bass Strait, decided they would use this grubby deal to undermine the 280 workers at the Longford plant. That mob over there, led by Senator Cormann, don't talk about this but they're happy to deliver tax cuts to ExxonMobil who will give you a job while the 280 long-suffering employees trying to negotiate an enterprise agreement are locked out. If you want to go and undermine the 280 workers you can walk straight through the gate and ExxonMobil will welcome you. Senator Cormann, I would love to hear how much taxation ExxonMobil will get back in your cuts. This is disgracefully misleading to the Australian people. It is an absolute insult, and this mob are nothing short of a disgrace.
You'd almost think that the Labor Party don't really want to debate the motion that they've just moved before the Senate. To be frank, given some of the activities of the last 24 hours and some of the briefings that are coming out from the Labor Party, I have to say I am starting to feel the ghosts of Labor past return from the Rudd-Gillard years, where 'policy turmoil' and 'policy implementation turmoil' were basically the buzzwords of how the Labor Party operated. The Labor Party try to talk about fairness, but I don't think they really understand what fairness is. They come in here and misrepresent numbers—they talk about a $65 billion tax cut to big business—and yet the background briefing is that they're going to back in the $30 billion of tax cuts that have already been passed for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million a year; that's already done. We're now talking about a process in front of the parliament at the moment for $35 billion, but they can't go past the old talking points that continue with the $65 billion. Here we have something that the Leader of the Opposition furiously opposed last year in this place. But now, reportedly, the Labor Party are going to support it.
We had the Labor Party's retirees' tax, which was introduced, or announced, a couple of weeks ago. I think it was described by the opposition spokesperson for Treasury matters, Mr Bowen, as a policy that was well designed and well thought through—I think he even admitted a few weeks ago that it was going to hit pensioners. But we have here today a backflip from the Labor Party. Their current policy, which was going to raise them billions of dollars, hasn't lasted a fortnight. They claimed a couple of weeks ago that this policy was well organised, well thought through, well designed and fair. But perhaps it's not fair. I find it quite interesting that they continue to talk about fairness all the time, because I don't think they really do understand what fairness means and I don't think they really do understand what good policy development is. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what Bill Shorten really does believe. Back in 2011, Bill Shorten said—
Senator Fawcett, I remind you to refer to others—
As long as you refer to me by my right title, I'll refer to him by his!
I beg your pardon; my apologies!
Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, said:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment—
I agree with that. He went on to say:
More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
Now, the Labor Party seem to be arguing today that that's not the case. So my question is: what does Bill Shorten really believe in? He also said—
Senator Colbeck—
Sorry, the Prime Minister—the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten—
He can be the Prime Minister! You can call him the Prime Minister!
No, I fear the day that ever happens, Senator! Mr Bill Shorten said, in an ACOSS speech on 30 March 2011:
… lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only (as the Greens propose) creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize.
In worse case scenarios some businesses might actually lay people off to get smaller—and the size based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth.
Instead we want a level playing field regardless of the size of the company.
Yet we understand that the Labor Party are going to support the tax cuts for businesses that have already been passed by the parliament, which they opposed last year, and they're going to continue to oppose something that they said they didn't support last year. What do the Labor Party really believe? What does Mr Shorten really believe in? I do remember one thing: when Mr Shorten said, 'I'm not sure what the Prime Minister has said, but I agree with everything that she has said.' I think there's one question that we all want answered: what does Mr Shorten really believe in? (Time expired)
This is a tax cut that will benefit, primarily, foreign multinationals and their shareholders. Up to 60 per cent of the company tax cuts will go to foreign shareholders, and of course a company could take the tax cut and have more share buy-backs instead of giving their employees a wage rise. It is absolutely appropriate that companies act in their best interests. Under the Corporations Law, we refer to companies as 'corporate citizens' or as 'persons'—artificial persons. In that regard, they have their own stakeholders and their own shareholders and, not surprisingly, they like to address those people and to give them the benefit of investing in those companies.
But that's not the problem. That's actually not what these tax cuts are going to do. These tax cuts will benefit companies in a way that is unfair. Senator Colbeck just asked: 'What is fairness?' Fairness is about treating people equally. So maybe this is a wing-and-a-prayer sort of operation that the government is running and it actually has no policy development around looking at what companies will actually do.
Let's have a look at some of the behaviour—perhaps lawful, but certainly unethical—that has gone on and been highlighted in the last few months. Let's look at Glencore, which, instead of negotiating with its employees, decided that it would just lock them out. We welcome foreign companies investing here. But in Australia we do not seek to break employees' will by locking them out of their workplace rather than negotiating with them. It is abhorrent behaviour. Let's have a look at the economics committee's inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. ExxonMobil, a couple of weeks ago in Melbourne, gave evidence to that inquiry that not only have they not paid any tax for the last three years; they won't be paying any tax for the next few years. They couldn't actually give a date for when they thought they might be paying some tax. I say that this is unethical behaviour.
Is it really the government's hope that these companies are going to say, 'Oh, look: we've got a corporate tax cut, so we're going to go down a few per cent in the tax we pay, and what we're going to do with that is to give our employees some extra wages'? Aren't these companies actually going to go back to their stakeholders and shareholders and say: 'We're going to give you an increased dividend'? They're not going to pay out on the cost of their business; they're going to pay out on what they can give to their shareholders. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that. That's actually what companies should do. This government is pinning its hope on people behaving well, but there are the examples of Glencore and ExxonMobil, and, in fact, there are whole lists of companies that do not behave ethically and do not pay tax in this country.
This is unaffordable and it will burden Australian taxpayers. If you go to the federal debt calculator you'll see that, as of today, the federal government debt is $552 billion. It has doubled under this government. This government would have you believe that they are good economic managers. They are not. And they are suffering from the fact that they have had two weak treasurers, Mr Hockey and now the current Treasurer. No wonder Senator Cormann is leaving the chamber. He has many things to do, because he, apparently, is—
Senator Kitching—
Through you, Chair: he is apparently running the ERC.
Senator Kitching, it's not appropriate to reflect on when senators leave the chamber.
I apologise, Madam Deputy President. But, coming back to the fact this is a bit of a wing-and-a-prayer taxation policy, and to Senator Colbeck's suggestion that the Australian Labor Party has no idea of how to form policy: if Senator Colbeck were familiar with the Income Tax Assessment Act, he would know that that piece of legislation is full of subsection upon subsection, redrafts and amendments, and corrigenda. That act reflects the fact that taxation in this country has been a dog's breakfast, particularly in the last few years, and particularly when we saw the way that the government operated to get its last lot of corporate tax cuts through. I would say that the government is obviously— (Time expired)
It is with a heavy heart that I come to the Senate this afternoon. Nothing demonstrates the parlous state of economic literacy or understanding in this country, or indeed in this Senate chamber, more than the debate about the company tax cuts. That's for a couple of reasons. The company tax cut initiative of this government sits as a measure in the broader pursuit of wider economic reform and therefore greater future prosperity—yes, for Australian companies and businesses but also for Australian workers. The second point is that the politics of this, I agree, are very simple in the electorate. I absolutely accept that, for many Australians, understanding how the economy works in its minutiae is not top of mind for them, nor should it be. But that doesn't mean that the Labor Party and others can use politics to deny Australians this very important economic reform initiative, because it sits in a basket of other reforms.
Why can the coalition be trusted on this issue, when it comes to economic reform and management? It's because the coalition's management of the economy over the last few years has demonstrated that the coalition have been wise, prudent economic managers. The evidence speaks for itself. We have seen extraordinary job growth. When the issue of job growth gets mentioned in this place, no-one in the opposition denies the remarkable success that the coalition have enjoyed in generating jobs. Everyone knows that government doesn't generate jobs, but government does have a high degree of influence over economic management, and we see the success of that economic management in strong jobs growth. We have seen consumer confidence increasing in this country, not decreasing. Indeed, consumers are more confident now than they have been in the last four years. In addition to that, we've seen a strengthening of non-mining business investment. We have seen solid growth of five per cent in 2017-18, and it is expected to be seen in 2018-19. And we've seen strengthening new private investment. These are demonstrations that the coalition's economic management to date has been successful, and Australian families and Australian workers will enjoy that over time.
The corporate tax cut is an important initiative as part of this wider basket of economic reform initiatives. People need to ask themselves: why was it that the Labor Party, just a few years ago, could agree with the virtues of company tax cuts, and particularly agree with the benefits they deliver for Australian workers—and I'll come to that in a moment—but they can't agree to that in 2018? What is it that has changed in the laws of economics in just those last five years? What is it? I put to you that nothing has changed in the laws of economics. Everything has changed in the politics.
If former Senator Dastyari were here, he would remind me how I like to talk about the Hawke-Keating economic period. It is true to say that Keating did bring important economic reform to this country, and he did so because he had the bipartisan support, for many measures, of the coalition. The absence of proper bipartisanship on significant economic reform initiatives like this is hurting Australian workers. So I ask Senator Kitching, Senator Brown and Senator Urquhart: what was it that you could see in corporate tax cuts four or five years ago that led your leadership to endorse them, to speak in favour of them, when today, in 2018, you don't endorse them? What has changed? I put it to you that it's political expediency, the opportunity for politics. In the process of pursuing that opportunity for politics, you are actually undermining the very people that you come to this parliament and say you represent, because Australian workers will pay the price for a lack of company tax cuts in this country. Senator Kitching, you are absolutely right, but the problem is: it's not good enough to welcome international business to Australia; the conditions in the Australian economy must be such that it is an attractive place for them to invest. You know as well as I do that rising American interest rates, the company tax cuts in the United States— (Time expired)
Senator Smith, I remind you to make your remarks to the chair.
Today I asked Minister Fierravanti-Wells how it is fair that, at the same time the Turnbull government's freeze on family tax benefits will leave a family with two primary-school-aged children and a household income of $60,000 a year around $440 a year worse off, it's giving big business a $65 billion handout. In my question I referenced an open letter from 11 welfare organisations and representative bodies. The open letter reads:
We believe that a company tax cut is a mistake while almost 3 million people live in poverty.
It is unconscionable to pursue company tax cuts while refusing to raise the rate of Newstart and other allowances.
If the Senate allows these tax cuts to go through while the budget is still in deficit, further budget cuts are inevitable. We are concerned that already disadvantaged Australians may pay more for health, education and community services.
I sincerely want to thank those organisations for always bravely standing up for disadvantaged Australians, for issuing this statement and for calling the Prime Minister out for his unfair, unaffordable, illogical big-business tax cuts.
Minister Fierravanti-Wells's response was telling in that she did not mention families once—not once. She said that tax cuts would create more jobs. I questioned if she had read the report in the Financial Review today that over 80 per cent of Business Council of Australia CEOs who responded to a survey stated they would not increase wages or grow jobs as a result of big-business tax cuts. The minister then said, 'The best form of welfare is a job.' But my question was about family tax benefits. Those people have a job. The government have just frozen the increase in part of their tax refund. The minister might like to come back into the Senate and explain how family tax benefits relate to 'the best form of welfare is a job'. The minister then went on to pensioners and self-funded retirees, and her scripted attack on the opposition was overblown. The minister, as I said earlier, did not mention families once. Not once did the minister talk about children. Not once did she talk about low-income Australians doing it tough. It was just a rant—and it was a rant about pensioners and retirees. The minister concluded her answer with some more hysterics, stating that Labor is all about 'tax and spend'.
Minister, it is the very nature of government to tax and to spend. That's why we're all here. The minister should probably read up on the tax-to-GDP rate in this country. Under the government it's through the roof, and they have no plan to get it down. Where they have proposed to cut taxes to business, they have legislated to increase income taxes on working Australians, and they have further plans for more cash for business owners and less cash for workers. On Liberal Party economics 101—and I note that Minister Cormann, in many of his answers today, referred to economics 101 as though he were the professor and we his pupils—what Minister Cormann disclosed in his enthusiasm is that he knows nothing beyond the disproven theories contained in many first-year economics classes. Every time Minister Cormann uses this line, it's clear that he needs to go back to school and listen a bit harder in some of the more complex, later-year classes.
I hope that crossbench senators were listening to the responses of Minister Cormann and Minister Fierravanti-Wells, because they will decide the fate of the Prime Minister's unfair, unaffordable, illogical big-business tax cuts. We all know that there are millions of Australians who benefit from family tax benefits. For these millions of Australians—these children, these mums and dads—the family tax benefit is vital to making ends meet in the family budget. That $440 a year might not seem like much to some people in this place, but it makes the difference when choosing between turning on the heater on a cold day, buying that extra bag of groceries or buying that new pair of sports shoes for one of the kids.
I want to conclude my contribution today by noting that former Senator Lambie repeatedly used question time to ask tough questions of government about matters that impacted on the lives of Tasmanian families—those people who I represent. But I note that her successor's contribution to question time today did nothing—not one single thing—to stand up for Tasmanian families who are doing it tough and will continue to do it tough if this government gets away with the tax cuts for big business that it has proposed.
Thank you, Senator Urquhart. I remind advisers they are not to be on the Senate floor. I was reluctant to sit Senator Urquhart down at the time, but I do remind advisers that they are not to be on the Senate floor. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Sterle be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
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 Whish-Wilson today relating to proposed company tax cuts.
I want to get on the record that the Greens took a policy to the 2013 federal election for a tax cut for small businesses—businesses with a turnover of $2 million. That had been a policy since I'd started as a senator. Having run a small business myself, that was very important to me. And we achieved that. In here we all legislated for a tax cut for small business, and there was very little disagreement on that. Following that, we've had two additional tax rises for $2 million to $10 million thresholds and from $10 million to $50 million. The Greens have opposed both of those tax rises. We felt that it was justified to give some of the hardest working people in this country, in small business, whatever assistance we possibly could.
What we have here before us today is really clear. This is a government that has no evidence and no justification to support big handouts to the big end of town. I raised this in my speech last week—so I won't go through it in a lot of detail—and I noted that companies in Wall Street and on Nasdaq were clearly spending hundreds and billions of dollars of their windfall gains from their tax cut on share buybacks and returns to shareholders. A survey by Morgan Stanley of those two indexes, of some of the biggest companies in the world, showed that 44 per cent of CEOs said that they were going to buy back their shares or return money to shareholders.
Not only is this directly against the message the government are pushing in their justification, where they're saying that some of these benefits are going to flow to workers in wages, but it also totally undermines their theory that companies are going to take this tax gain and reinvest it back in their businesses, thereby stimulating economic growth, creating jobs, enhancing productivity and growing wages. If a company says, 'No, I'm not going to reinvest this money back in my business; the best thing for me to do is to put it back into my company's shares', which, incidentally, often helps the share price go up and helps their share valuations—and guess who that benefits; yes, senior executives and CEOs—and makes the very rational decision to suggest that they don't have the demand for their products, the business plan is in place, the pipeline of growth that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Senator Cormann continually refer to.
It makes a total farce out of their arguments that today a leaked document was given to The Australian Financial Review and commented on in the papers this morning. I challenge the government to table that document. Get in touch with your mates at the BCA and ask them for a copy of it. Clearly they're embarrassed that it's been leaked and clearly the implication was that they didn't like the results of that survey—hence they weren't going to release it. It clearly shows that only one in five CEOs had contemplated giving some of this money to workers in wage rises and that 80 per cent of the 130 CEOs surveyed said that they would consider using it for share buybacks.
So here we have a situation very similar to that in the US. What we have is a direct transfer of wealth from the Australian people—our revenue in government that we spend on essential services like our social safety net, investment in our children's future through secondary education and higher education and child care and preschool—to some of the biggest and wealthiest businesses in the world, who are saying: 'Thank you very much. I'll pocket that handout, and I'll do with it whatever I want.' Senator Cormann is happy with that. He made that clear in his response to my question today—'Let's leave it to companies to make that decision.' The decision that they are making makes a mockery of the key argument the Treasury secretary used at estimates to justify the modelling and the assumptions upon which their wage growth forecasts and their economic growth forecasts are predicated—that companies will reinvest this money in their business, thus enhancing productivity, driving up wages and enabling more people to be employed.
But company CEOs aren't saying that. They're going: 'Thanks very much. I'll buy back my shares. I'll return the money to shareholders. That's where I'll get the best bang for my buck, not reinvesting in the economy.' Of course there may be some investment from this tax cut back into the economy, but that's a very different thing to assuming that all that money is going to be reinvested in the economy. I would say, based on the survey results, that not much of it at all will trickle back to the workers, wages and reinvestment in the economy. That's why we need to vote down these business tax cuts. Senators who are undecided should please take note.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I advise the Senate that I'm designated as a whip for the purposes of standing order 24A relating to the Selection of Bills Committee.
I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 to 4 standing in my name for 28 March 2018, proposing the disallowance of the Broadcasting Services (Technical Planning) Guidelines (Consequential Amendments) Instrument 2017 (No. 2), the Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Allocation—Multi-band Auction) Determination 2017, the Retirement Savings Accounts Tax File Number approval No. 1 of 2017 and the Migration Agents (IMMI 17/047: CPD Activities, Approval of CPD Providers and CPD Provider Standards) Instrument 2017. I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave granted.
When these instruments were received by the parliament they had been incorrectly classified and were, therefore, incorrectly tabled as exempt from disallowance. Following correspondence with the relevant ministers, the committee concluded that the instruments were misclassified due to administrative errors and the classifications were corrected. The committee's final comments on these matters are in Delegated Legislation Monitors 15 and 16 of 2017.
The committee is concerned that such errors can hinder the effective oversight of instruments by parliament. This is because, during the period an instrument is incorrectly listed as exempt from disallowance, senators lose some or all of the 15 sitting days available to them to give a notice of motion to disallow the instrument. For this reason the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee gave notices of motion to disallow each of these instruments, thereby providing senators with an additional 15 sitting days to consider them. The committee is now withdrawing those motions but remains concerned about the classification of instruments generally and will continue to monitor this issue.
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE
IN THE 2018 AUTUMN SITTINGS
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill
Purpose of the Bill
The bill introduces measures that will improve the sustainability of the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) by setting a new minimum repayment threshold and adjusting subsequent repayment thresholds, changing indexation arrangements for repayment thresholds, and setting a limit on the amount of tertiary education assistance a student may borrow.
The bill will also amend repayment thresholds for the Student Financial Supplement Scheme (SFSS) from 1 July 2019 to align them with HELP repayment thresholds. To ensure that the HELP changes do not adversely impact SFSS debtors, existing repayment arrangements will be retained for 2018–19 and SFSS debts would no longer be recovered concurrently with HELP debts.
Reasons for Urgency
Passage of the bill in the 2018 Autumn sittings is essential so that new HELP repayment thresholds can commence on 1 July 2018. This will avoid confusing HELP debtors by having a second change to repayment thresholds in the space of a year and provide adequate notice to debtors and affected agencies.
The Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016 lowered the minimum repayment threshold for HELP debts to $51,957 in 2018-19, with a two per cent repayment rate. This bill introduces a lower repayment threshold of $45,000, with a one per cent repayment rate. The threshold set by the Omnibus Act becomes the second threshold. Each further threshold is six per cent higher than the previous one, with repayment rates rising in half per cent increments. In future years, thresholds will be indexed not by reference to Average Weekly Earnings as is currently the case, but by the Consumer Price Index.
The bill also introduces, from 1 January 2019, a new limit on the total amount of tuition assistance that can be borrowed through FEE-HELP loans (including FEE HELP, VET FEE-HELP, and VET student loans). The limits will be set at $150,000 for students undertaking medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses (leading to professional registration) and $104,440 for other students.
From 1 January 2020, there will be a combined HELP loan limit on the total amount of tuition assistance that can be borrowed through HECS-HELP, FEE HELP, VET FEE-HELP, and VET student loans. That is, HECS-HELP loans will reduce a person's HELP balance from 2020 onwards.
In addition, from 1 January 2020, the total loan balance will become renewable, such that any HELP debt repayments that a person makes during a financial year (starting 1 July 2019) will be subsequently re credited to their loan balance. This will enable them to take out further HECS-HELP, FEE HELP, VET FEE HELP, and VET student loans to the same amount. That is, a person's HELP loan balance will be renewed by HELP debt repayments, but it cannot exceed the relevant loan limit.
Changes to HELP repayment thresholds and rates, and the amount of debt that a student can accrue, will affect all those who take out HELP loans (including VET Student Loans, Trade Support Loans, Student Start−up Loans and loans under the discontinued Student Financial Supplement Scheme). In turn, this affects several agencies including the Department of Education and Training, the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Human Services and the Department of Social Services, as well as higher education providers. These agencies and loan providers require lead time to implement systems changes and communicate with students and debtors about how the changes affect them.
Put simply, measures that can improve the sustainability of student loans are vital. This bill contributes by ensuring more HELP debtors commence repayment, even at low rates, reducing overall debt not expected to be repaid. It will also ensure that high income earners with HELP debts repay their debts faster.
Passage of this bill will make a significant contribution to achieving fair and reasonable reform of the Higher Education Loan Program so that it has a more sustainable future.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Education and Training)
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Garvan Institute of Medical Research (the Garvan Institute) has completed the first cancer research project using the DreamLab app, in half the time it would have otherwise taken,
(ii) the DreamLab app, developed in partnership with Vodafone Foundation, uses the processing power of idle smartphones to give the Garvan Institute free access to a supercomputer resource, to allow it to conduct ground-breaking cancer research,
(iii) its first project, Project Decode, mapped the genome of breast, ovarian, prostate and pancreatic cancer patients to help researchers better understand these cancers based on a patient's DNA profile,
(iv) the mapping highlighted genome clusters and has allowed the researchers to see patterns they can now explore further,
(v) Project Decode was completed with 121,000 app users, whose idle smartphones crunched 75 million calculations, since being launched in November 2015,
(vi) the Garvan Institute intends to make the research data publicly available for other researchers to use, and plans to publish the findings of this project in a research journal in June, and
(vii) the Garvan Institute's other DreamLab project, Project Genetic Profile, is decoding brain, lung, melanoma and sarcoma cancers, and is one-fifth of the way towards completion;
(b) further notes that:
(i) this work is part of the Garvan Institute's ongoing effort to tackle rare and less common cancers,
(ii) the Garvan Institute's Genomic Cancer Medicine Program, in Sydney, has taken close to 1000 Australians with rare and less common cancers since October 2016,
(iii) the Garvan Institute aims to make this program available nationally, by linking with cancer centres in all states and territories, so patients do not need to travel to Sydney, and
(iv) the Garvan Institute's research, plus its national approach to treating cancer patients with high unmet needs, contributes to the evidence base state and federal governments need to make informed decisions about genomic and precision medicine; and
(c) calls on senators who want to play their part in this research to download and use the DreamLab app if they have not already done so, to help accelerate this research, and for those who have already used the app to continue their contribution to this ground-breaking cancer research. (general business notice of motion no. 783)
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations be extended to 10 May 2018. (general business notice of motion no. 784)
Senator Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on 28 March 2018:
(a) all correspondence between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources relating to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) Digital Strategy; and
(b) a copy of the APVMA Digital Strategy. (general business notice of motion no. 785)
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in March 2017, the United States of America (US) Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform heard that approximately half of adult Americans' photographs are in a Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) database – FRT has accuracy deficiencies leading to misidentifying female and African American individuals at a higher rate; human verification is often insufficient as a backup and can allow for racial bias; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) accepts an error rate of 15% in its system, and that the FBI used FRT for years without first publishing a privacy impact assessment and went to great lengths to exempt itself from certain provisions of the Privacy Act,
(ii) in June 2016, the US Government Accountability Office analysed the FBI's use of FRT and found it to be lacking in accountability, accuracy and oversight, with key concerns that the FBI system does not test for false positives or for racial bias,
(iii) FRT is subject to biases based on the data sets provided and the conditions in which algorithms are created, and
(iv) the National Facial Biometric Matching Capability, based on the FBI's Next Generation Identification program, is subject to the same risks of bias and error rates; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to ensure that:
(i) all steps are taken to minimise bias and error rates in government facial recognition systems, including testing for false positives and racial bias, and
(ii) government agencies using facial recognition systems comply with the Privacy Act, and maintain transparency, accountability, accuracy and oversight. (general business notice of motion no. 786)
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in 2013, the United Nations General Assembly affirmed that the rights held by people offline must also be protected online, and it called upon all States to respect and protect the right to privacy in digital communication,
(ii) social media and online platforms that base their businesses on customer surveillance and advertising are not respecting or protecting individuals' right to privacy,
(iii) on 25 May 2018, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into effect, for all companies that hold data within or as a result of doing business with citizens of the European Union (EU),
(iv) under the GDPR, consent must be explicit for data collected and for the purposes for which data is used, and individuals will have the right of access to their personal data and information about how this personal data is being processed, a right to request erasure of personal data related to them, and a right to be able to transfer personal data from one electronic processing system to and into another,
(v) the GDPR will include a strict data protection compliance regime with severe penalties of up to 4% of worldwide turnover or 20 million Euro, whichever is higher, and
(vi) the GDPR represents current best practice regarding standards for the protection of data and, as many Australian businesses will need to comply with the GDPR, implementing a similar regime in Australia would be the most cost-effective way to improve data protection standards; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) support Australian businesses in complying with the GDPR, and
(ii) look to the GDPR as a model of international best practice for privacy protections for Australians against companies that employ surveillance capitalism. (general business notice of motion no. 787)
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 September 2018:
The proposed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, with particular reference to:
(a) Australia's economy and trade;
(b) Australia's domestic labour market testing obligations and laws regarding wages, conditions and entitlements of Australian workers and temporary work visa holders;
(c) Australian investment;
(d) the effect of Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions;
(e) Australia's health, environmental, social and cultural policies, including regulation of essential services;
(f) rights for consumers; and
(g) any other related matters.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 31 March 2018 is Transgender Day of Visibility, and
(ii) Transgender Day of Visibility is an opportunity to publicly affirm and celebrate trans and gender-diverse people's lives, their stories and their contributions to our communities; and
(b) calls on all parliamentarians to:
(i) recognise and celebrate the many and varied contributions of trans and gender-diverse people,
(ii) commit to elevating the voices and stories of trans and gender-diverse people in this Parliament, and
(iii) support the provision of essential health, social, cultural, and community services for trans and gender-diverse people and their families, delivered with the meaningful input and involvement of these communities. (general business notice of motion no. 788)
Senators O'Sullivan and Williams to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that:
(i) some financial services entities, including authorised deposit-taking institutions, registrable superannuation entities, insurers, statutory authorities, corporate Commonwealth entities, and those holding a financial services licence are yet to publically clarify their position on waiving confidentiality and non-disclosure arrangements for those individuals or organisations looking to lodge a submission to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (the Royal Commission), and
(ii) the opening address by Commissioner Kenneth Hayne, QC, at the Royal Commission on 12 February 2018 stated: 'A confidentiality or non-disparagement clause in an agreement will not act as a reasonable excuse against production in answer to a notice to produce or a summons' and 'It seems to me to follow that answering a notice or summons would not amount to a breach of any confidentiality or non-disparagement clause'; and
(b) adopts a unified position that:
(i) no individual or organisation should be prevented or deterred from lodging a submission to the Royal Commission due to pre-existing confidentiality obligations in non-disclosure or other agreements (NDAs),
(ii) where an NDA would prevent or deter the lodgement of a submission by a person, the relevant financial service entity should waive the NDA in circumstances where the person seeking to lodge the submission so desires, and
(iii) where an NDA would prevent or deter the lodgement of a submission by a person, the relevant Commonwealth statutory authority, corporate Commonwealth entity or government business enterprise should waive the NDA in circumstances where the person seeking to lodge the submission so desires. (general business notice of motion no. 789)
Senators Siewert and McKim to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep concern reports that Indigenous rangers could be caught up in the Government's proposed foreign interference laws, in particular, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017;
(b) expresses confusion that Indigenous rangers could find themselves cast as foreign agents by advocating in favour of their program, simply because they are funded by an American charitable trust;
(c) affirms that the Indigenous rangers program plays a critical role in protecting country, and providing meaningful employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples;
(d) further affirms the importance of advocacy and civil society in a healthy democracy; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) abandon its package of legislation relating to foreign influence, including the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017, and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017, and
(ii) go back to the drawing board and adequately consult with those affected by the legislation. (general business notice of motion no. 790)
Senator Urquhart to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate requires the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to meet on 10 April 2018, from 2 pm to 4 pm, in Canberra, to further consider the 2017-18 additional estimates in the Communications and Arts portfolio, and the NBNCo, and that the Minister for Communications and the Minister for the Arts (Senator Fifield) be in attendance, as well as Mr Morrow, Mr Rue, Mr McInerney, Mr Ryan and Ms Lovell from NBNCo. (general business notice of motion no. 791)
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator McKenzie for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.
I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 December 2018:
The role of Commonwealth, state and territory Governments in addressing the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders, emergency service workers and volunteers, with particular reference to:
(a) the nature and underlying causes of mental health conditions experienced by first responders, emergency service workers and volunteers;
(b) research identifying linkages between first responder and emergency service occupations, and the incidence of mental health conditions;
(c) management of mental health conditions in first responder and emergency services organisations, factors that may impede adequate management of mental health within the workplace and opportunities for improvement, including:
(i) reporting of mental health conditions,
(ii) specialised occupational mental health support and treatment services,
(iii) workers' compensation,
(iv) workplace culture and management practices,
(v) occupational function and return-to-work arrangements,
(vi) collaboration between first responder and emergency services organisations,
(vii) post-retirement mental health support services, and
(viii) resource allocation; and
(d) any other related matters.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the terms of reference for the inquiry of the Environment and Communications References Committee into the rehabilitation of mining and resources projects, agreed to on 8 February 2017, be amended to read as follows:
The rehabilitation of mining and resources projects and power station ash dams as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities, for example under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), with regard to:
(a) the cost of outstanding rehabilitation obligations of currently operating projects;
(b) the adequacy of existing regulatory, policy and institutional arrangements to ensure adequate and timely rehabilitation;
(c) the adequacy and transparency of financial mechanisms, including assurances, bonds and funds, to ensure that mining and resources projects and power station ash dams are rehabilitated without placing a burden on public finances;
(d) the effectiveness of current Australian rehabilitation practices in safeguarding human health and repairing and avoiding environmental damage;
(e) the effectiveness of existing abandoned mines programs, with regard to repairing environmental damage and safeguarding human health;
(ea) the effectiveness of existing and past power station ash dams with regard to repairing environmental damage and safeguarding human health;
(f) whether any mining, resources or electricity generation companies have engaged in conduct designed to avoid fulfilling their rehabilitation obligations;
(g) the potential social, economic and environmental impacts, including on matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, of inadequate rehabilitation;
(h) the potential social, economic and environmental benefits of adequate rehabilitation, including job opportunities in communities affected by job losses in the mining, resources and electricity generation sectors;
(i) international examples of effective rehabilitation policy and practice;
(j) proposals for reform of rehabilitation of mining and resources projects and power station ash dams; and
(k) any other related matters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Responsibility for abandoned mines and for ensuring that mining companies comply with their rehabilitation obligations rests primarily with state and territory governments. The only exception is uranium mines in the Northern Territory, which are the responsibility of the Australian government. All state and territory governments have systems in place to ensure miners fulfil their rehabilitation requirements before relinquishing mining leases through a system of bonds or bank guarantees, or a pooled fund, or a combination of the two. The current inquiry provides certainty for all stakeholders. The extended reference to include industrial waste would involve different stakeholders to those who provided submissions to the current inquiry and puts at risk the current reporting date, which has already been extended three times.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I thank the committee for supporting my request to change the terms of reference of this inquiry. I hold serious concerns about the failed ash dam remediation at the abandoned Port Augusta power stations and the health problems for local residents that flow from that. However, I recognise that this is also a national problem that requires a national solution to ensure proper rehabilitation of all power station sites across Australia. A clean-as-you-go approach may be necessary. I urge support for this motion and look forward to the committee examining this issue, which is of critical importance to my constituents in Port Augusta.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators McCarthy, Leyonhjelm, Anning, Hinch, Hanson, Molan, Patrick, Griff and Rice, move:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education, be established to inquire into and report on the future of stillbirth research and education in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) consistency and timeliness of data available to researchers across states, territories and federal jurisdictions;
(b) coordination between Australian and international researchers;
(c) partnerships with the corporate sector, including use of innovative new technology;
(d) sustainability and propriety of current research funding into stillbirth, and future funding options, including government, philanthropic and corporate support;
(e) research and education priorities and coordination, including the role that innovation and the private sector can play in stillbirth research and education;
(f) communication of stillbirth research for Australian families, including culturally and linguistically appropriate advice for Indigenous and multicultural families, before and during a pregnancy;
(g) quantifying the impact of stillbirths on the Australian economy; and
(h) any related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before the second sitting Thursday of 2019.
(3) That the committee consist of six senators, as follows:
(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and
(d) one nominated by minor party and independent senators.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and as deputy chair a member nominated by the committee.
(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.
(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
I seek leave to make a short statement of no longer than two minutes.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This is not my first speech. Six babies a day in Australia are stillborn. Those are six lives lost every day in Australia due to stillbirth. One in 135 births in Australia will be a stillbirth. Surely we, as a nation, can do better than this. Stillbirth is an often overlooked, underinvestigated and ignored public health issue. It has significant economic impact. Surely we, as a country, can do better than this? There are things that we know that we're not telling parents that could help them prevent stillbirth, and there are things we could know better with better data collection and more coordinated and better funded research. I'd like to note the strong bipartisan support this motion has, and I thank the Senate for its support in setting up the select committee inquiry.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government supports this motion and the establishment of a select committee on stillbirth research and education. This is an important public health issue, and we'll work cooperatively in a bipartisan manner with the committee.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 27 March 2018, early childhood educators all across Australia will walk off the job, demanding the Government value their work and fund fair pay,
(ii) early childhood educators provide a vital service in the development of young minds, and
(iii) qualified early childhood educators can earn as little as $21 per hour, which is half the average wage;
(b) recognises early childhood educators are not being paid a wage commensurate with the value of their social contribution; and
(c) commends early childhood union, United Voice, for their leadership on this campaign, and encourages all childcare educators to participate in standing strong for fair pay.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government respects the work of early childhood educators. Educator wages are entirely a matter for the independent Fair Work Commission. Unions had their case heard and dismissed by the Fair Work Commission under laws written by the previous Labor government. Early learning and childcare centres should value their employees. Indeed, many already pay above the award. The role of government is to help families access affordable early education and care. That is why the coalition government is investing an extra $2.5 billion to deliver more support for more Australians, benefiting around one million families.
I want to seek leave to get Senator Lines added to this motion.
You can do that without leave. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young?
You both could have come to me any time before now.
Leave is denied for that.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by no later than noon on 28 March 2018, documents held or prepared by the Department of Health, National Health Funding Administrator, the office of the Minister for Health and/or the office of the Prime Minister:
(a) listing for each of the years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, the amount:
(i) remitted by the Commonwealth for block funded public hospital services in Queensland under the National Health Reform Agreement,
(ii) remitted by the Commonwealth for activity-based funded public hospital services in Queensland under the National Health Reform Agreement,
(iii) remitted by Queensland for block funded public hospital services in Queensland under the National Health Reform Agreement, and
(iv) remitted by Queensland for activity-based funded public hospital services in Queensland under the National Health Reform Agreement;
(b) listing for each of the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, the amount projected to be paid by the Commonwealth in respect of public hospital services in Queensland and incorporated in the current budget forward estimates;
(c) source documentation and data for the information in (a) and (b), including documents disclosing any workings or calculations required to provide the information; and
(d) documents, including briefing notes, internal memoranda, and emails disclosing evidence for the claim by government members that Queensland reduced public hospital expenditure by $63 million in the 2017-18 state budget.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government welcomes the opportunity to highlight our record funding support for Queensland's public hospitals. It is worth noting that all information relating to the Commonwealth's funding contribution to Queensland public hospitals and the Queensland and Labor government's cuts to health services in 2017-18 are already publicly available online.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) strong digital encryption protects the personal and financial information of millions of people,
(ii) encryption is an important tool to prevent identity theft and other crime,
(iii) encryption ensures that public interest whistleblowers, journalists and other civil society actors can conduct their activities more securely,
(iv) the Government, through services such as Medicare and Centrelink, and digital platforms such as myGov, depends on encryption to keep client information safe, and
(v) any decrease in public trust in digital systems and services will present an obstacle to the Government's agile innovation agenda; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) support the continued development and use of strong encryption technologies,
(ii) resist any push from other governments to weaken encryption on personal devices, and
(iii) work with law enforcement to develop alternative avenues to obtain information through warrants and targeted surveillance that does not put every Australian at greater risk of identity theft.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian government supports the use of strong encryption, which underpins the security of sensitive government, commercial and personal information. However, the government is concerned about the use of encrypted communications and storage platforms by terrorist organisations, organised crime groups, child exploitation networks and others involved in serious criminal activity. Addressing this challenge requires a multifaceted approach, including closer cooperation between industry and agencies—where it is reasonable and proportionate—and ensuring agencies have alternative powers and capabilities. The government is not proposing to mandate back doors or weak encryption for all users. This is about targeted access to information via lawful process.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Hanson and Hinch, move:
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) on 20 March 2018, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents directing that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by 9.30 am on 22 March 2018:
(A) the March 2014 KPMG report into the funding of federal courts, and
(B) the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report, and
(ii) to date, the Minister has failed to comply with the order for the production of documents;
(b) the Senate requires the Minister to table documents in full compliance with the above order for the production of documents by 5 pm on 27 March 2018; and
(c) in the event that the Minister does not table documents in full compliance with the order, the Senate orders that:
(i) the Minister representing the Attorney-General is required to attend the Senate at 9.30 am on 28 March 2018 and, prior to government business being called on, to explain why the Minister has not complied with the order of the Senate of 20 March 2018,
(ii) in the event that the Minister provides an explanation, any senator may, without notice, move a motion to take note of the Minister's statement,
(iii) in the event that the Minister does not provide an explanation, any senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the Minister's failure to provide an explanation, and
(iv) any motion under paragraph (c)(ii) or (iii) may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all government business until determined.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Attorney-General has claimed public interest immunity over these documents. The disclosure of these documents would impact on the government's ability to make fully informed decisions in relation to the structure and administration of federal courts by have a chilling effect on the participation and advice of the courts. This would cause harm to the public interest as it would undermine the government's ability to support the courts in improving their efficiency and effectiveness to the benefit of all Australian families.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on the behalf of Senators Reynolds, Kitching and Farrell, move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the players, coaching staff, supporters and clubs involved in the second season of the AFL Women's competition, in particular the 2018 AFLW Premiers, the Western Bulldogs, and runners-up, the Brisbane Lions;
(b) notes the ongoing growth in girls' and women's involvement in Australian Rules football, including:
(i) during 2017, more than 460 000 participants across all levels, representing 30 per cent of all participation in the game, and
(ii) in 2017, 1690 women's community club teams taking the field, representing a 76% increase in teams; and
(c) calls on the Government to take action to support women's participation in Australian Rules football, and to support fair pay for its professional players.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian government already supports female participation in sport and will continue to do so. For example, our Girls Make Your Move campaign specifically encourages young women to be more active through sport and physical activity. Phase 3 of the campaign was launched at the AFL Women's grand final over the weekend. While it's not the role of the Australian government to determine the pay for athletes, we support the principle of fair pay for professional players.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to air services, 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 an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I introduce this bill to the Senate in response to community voices across Australia who seek to protect the liveability of their neighbourhoods from the detrimental effects of aircraft noise.
In my work on transport issues in this place, I have heard from a range of communities living both near airports and also further away under flight paths, who are experiencing significant aircraft noise which is impacting their quality of life.
In their efforts to gain action in response to problematic aircraft noise, community members and groups have raised with me their frustration at the lack of clarity when it comes to which authority (or authorities) is responsible for response and action.
The rules that govern flight paths and community consultation are written for businesses and operators, not for the communities that live with aircraft noise every day. Communities currently have very limited recourse beyond seeking voluntary agreements with aircraft operators known as 'Fly Neighbourly Agreements', which have proven effective in some, but not all, situations.
This bill reflects a similar piece of legislation introduced to the other place by the Member for Melbourne, in response to issues his constituents have faced over many years with concentrated aircraft noise over residential areas.
As the Member for Melbourne noted when introducing that bill, his constituents had attempted to work within the current law over a long period to seek responses and action to resolve the significant disruptions to their amenity.
This bill echoes some specific provisions of the bill introduced in the other place, that are included in response to the particular issues faced by residents of Melbourne in my home state, who reside in areas which are particularly affected by the noise arising from acute circumstances of high intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.
I have regularly raised a range of noise and amenity issues in Senate Estimates to attempt to get answers on how issues can be resolved and how communities can secure meaningful responses to their concerns.
What is clear is that we need legislative change to clarify responsibility and affirm meaningful community consultation and involvement in the processes that lead to aircraft noise impacts on residents.
In introducing this bill, I seek to clarify the responsibilities of federal agencies so that when it comes to aircraft noise, communities have a voice.
This bill amends the Air Services Act 1995 to do a number of things. It will include in the functions of Airservices Australia (AA), the protection of community amenity and residential areas from the effects of the operation and use of aircraft.
It will also require AA to consult and cooperate with communities when modifying or creating flight paths.
It will require AA to provide a mechanism for complaints during the consultation process and require that AA publish details of consultations.
The bill also provides for the establishment of an independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman; to receive, examine, resolve and report on complaints and issues that arise from flight paths and aircraft noise related matters.
The bill also amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to require the minister to appoint a Community Aviation Advocate when changes in the management of aircraft noise or airspace have, or would be likely to have, a significant impact on the human or natural environment, community amenity or residential areas.
As was noted by the member for Melbourne when introducing his similar bill, this bill includes several aspects of a previous private member's bill, introduced to the other place in 2011 by the then Member for Pearce, the Hon. Judi Moylan MP. I also want to acknowledge the former member for her work.
I also acknowledge that other senators have raised aircraft noise and amenity matters on behalf of their constituencies during Estimates and in other fora. I seek their support, and the support of the Senate, for this bill.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
At the request of Senators Moore and Di Natale, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) there are half a billion adolescent girls aged between 10 to 19 in the developing world today,
(ii) adolescent girls in the developing world are our next generation of women leaders, workers and mothers,
(iii) when we create the conditions for adolescent girls to fulfil their right to gender equality, to be healthy, educated, safe and economically empowered, they have the power to lift their families out of poverty and transform their nation's economies,
(iv) the United Nations Population Fund has recognised girls aged 10 as the key group whose potential, if unlocked, will create the economic and social conditions needed to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and
(v) in recognition of the potential of adolescent girls all around the world, Plan International Australia has, this week, launched the new report, Half A Billion Reasons: How Investing In Adolescent Girls Can Change the World, providing a global snapshot of the key challenges that girls face in the developing world and a road map for transforming their lives;
(b) further notes that the global community can transform the lives of adolescent girls by:
(i) protecting every adolescent girl's right to be free from gender-based violence and harmful practices such as child marriage and female genital mutilation,
(ii) promoting the health, well-being and rights of adolescent girls through access to sexual and reproductive health information and services,
(iii) fighting poverty by giving adolescent girls access to quality, inclusive and equitable secondary education,
(iv) growing a country's economic prosperity by economically empowering girls and young women,
(v) empowering and protecting adolescent girls during disasters and emergencies, and
(vi) creating the conditions for adolescent girls to be change agents and leaders;
(c) calls on all parliamentarians to support adolescent girls globally, committing to strengthen gender equality for adolescent girls around the world; and
(d) calls on the Australian Government to prioritise adolescent girls' human rights in Australia's foreign policy, overseas aid, development and trade.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia's aid policy, launched in June 2014, establishes gender equality and women's empowerment as a priority for Australian official development assistance. It requires that 80 per cent of Australia's aid initiatives, irrespective of focus, perform effectively in promoting gender equality. Launched in 2016, women and girls are covered by our existing Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Strategy, which reflects the need to address gender equality along the continuum of girls' and women's lives.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) is currently considering an application from Petroleum Geoservices Australia to conduct 3D and 2D seismic surveys in environmentally sensitive waters off Port Lincoln and Kangaroo Island,
(ii) seismic testing involves blasting 260 decibels of sound every 10 seconds, and
(iii) this volume is louder than a space shuttle launch from its launch pad, a nuclear bomb from its epicentre, and the sound produced at the epicentre of Krakatoa's volcanic eruption in 1883, which was audible 4500 kms away from its source;
(b) further notes that:
(i) if approved, the seismic testing program would impact the direct migratory path of southern Bluefin tuna, southern right whales and sperm whales, and
(ii) a seismic test of this proposed scale can result in death;
(c) commends the actions of the Kangaroo Island Council, the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association, Sea Shepherd, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, the Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and concerned local community members in drawing attention to the potential harm that this seismic testing program could create if approved by NOPSEMA; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to prohibit seismic testing in the Great Australian Bight.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government does not support the motion. Australia has one of the most robust regulatory regimes in the world for offshore oil and gas. The only long-term way we can protect jobs and ensure energy security is to find new supplies of oil and gas. Exploration in the Great Australian Bight, including seismic surveys, has occurred safely since the 1960s. There are strict safety and environmental standards and the industry is overseen by an independent expert regulator, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I find it extremely disappointing that the coalition government in this place continues to put South Australian coastal areas and marine life at risk. Kangaroo Island is the jewel of our tourism crown, and this seismic testing is only some 40 kilometres off the coast of Kangaroo Island. It is going to devastate that marine area and the tourism industry, and South Australians don't want it. The sooner these turkeys wake up to that the better.
The question is that notice of motion No. 769 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) former Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, and former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, led the introduction of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in 1996,
(ii) a 2016 study, Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, found that in the 20 years since the NFA was implemented, there have been no mass shootings in Australia, and
(iii) on 24 March 2018, the March for Our Lives took place in the United States of America, calling for stricter controls on firearms; and
(b) congratulates everyone who is making their voice heard on the important issue of reducing violence involving firearms.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The study mentioned in this motion is probably the most dishonest paper ever on the subject of gun control. The rest of the world uses the FBI definition of a mass shooting to mean 'four victims, not including the shooter' and they don't necessarily have to be all dead. By that definition, Australia has had several mass shootings since 1996. The paper's authors, Philip Alpers and Simon Chapman, are obsessive anti-gun nuts. They changed the definition to 'five victims, not including the shooter' so that they could make the claim that there had been no mass shootings in the 20 years since the NFA was implemented. It's wrong and it's dishonest.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 776, standing in my name for today, relating to the Australian flag.
Was it to remove clause (c), Senator Anning?
Yes, that's correct.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) good men and women have fought and died to protect the Australian flag,
(ii) our flag represents our nation and our values and is bound with our history and heritage,
(iii) in the lead-up to ANZAC Day, it is important that we seek to protect and defend the Australian flag against the actions of those that attack our history and tradition, and
(iv) radical actions have been seen at past Australia Day and ANZAC Day ceremonies, and that these are completely disrespectful and un-Australian;
(b) expresses the opinion that it should be illegal to burn the Australian flag; and
(c) calls on the Government to legislate to create a criminal offence for a person to maliciously and intentionally burn, deface, destroy or trample the Australian flag.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government proudly supports the Australian flag. It is a symbol of the values for which our country stands and a beacon of the freedoms and liberties for which countless brave Australians have fought. However, we do not support moves to criminalise burning or defacing our flag. The coalition has never supported criminalisation, a position held since the Howard government and supported by the then leaders of the Australian National Flag Association. Such a crime would only create an incentive for protesters to martyr themselves by inviting prosecution, giving them the attention they seek and legitimising their vile acts as a form of political protest. State and territory police can already arrest and charge flag burners under public order laws, including public nuisance and disturbing the peace. As such, we oppose parts (b) and (c) and would ask that the question on part (a) be put separately from the question on those parts.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The opposition will not be supporting this motion, not because we encourage or endorse burning the Australian flag but because we recognise the right of people to do so in a democracy. I note the following remarks on this subject:
… I see that kind of thing as just an expression, however offensive to the majority of the community—
that is, the Australian community—
an expression of political opinion. I don't think we achieve anything by making it a criminal offence, we only turn yahoo behaviour into martyrdom …
In a democracy, we do not make political expression a criminal offence, no matter that opinion. In fact, we do everything we can to protect people's right to express it. These words are from former Prime Minister John Howard, certainly no friend of Labor. Senator Anning would do well to reflect on them. Senator Anning could actually bring a bill into this place to give effect to his views, but he chooses not to. I look forward to those on the government benches, who purport to be defenders of freedom and liberty, joining with Labor to oppose this motion.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian Greens will not be supporting Senator Anning's motion. Senator Anning says that people have fought in wars to protect the flag. People fight in wars to preserve the rights we have in our democracy—that's what those wars are fought over. Those rights include the right of people to engage in peaceful protest, and, for some people, that may involve burning the flag, an action that should not be criminalised. For many people, the flag symbolises years of oppression. That's particularly true for First Nations people. In fact, Victorian Greens MP Lydia Thorpe, the first Aboriginal woman in the Victorian parliament, has stated that the Australian flag doesn't represent her. Many First Nations people see it as an ongoing symbol of oppression and genocide. How about having a genuine debate? Let's change the date we celebrate Australia Day, and let's change the flag while we're at it.
To clarify: in the first instance I will be putting clause (a) of motion 776, following a request from a government senator. So the question is that clause (a) of motion 776 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I will now put clauses (b) and (d). Clause (d) has now been renamed as clause (c), because clause (c) as printed has been deleted. The question is that clause (b) and the new clause (c), formerly clause (d), of motion 776 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the courageous and selfless sacrifice of the Australian 'Digger';
(b) shows continued support for ANZAC Day as a national day of memorial for all those who have served our nation, some paying the ultimate sacrifice, so that we may enjoy our freedoms;
(c) encourages all Australians to partake in ANZAC Day ceremonies; and
(d) calls on the Government to create a commemorative ANZAC Centenary Medal, which would be available to:
(i) all service personnel who were enlisted on 25 April 2015 and a period of 12 months prior, and
(ii) all service personnel who have been deployed overseas.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I rise today to call on the Senate to pay tribute to our heroes. This motion asks the government to issue a commemorative medal for the centenary of the Anzacs' landing at Gallipoli. The purpose of this is both to honour the sacrifice of the original Anzacs and to remind us all that our service people today are the worthy inheritors of the Anzac tradition. This medal was proposed to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott back in 2015, but the unique opportunity to commemorate the Anzacs was missed. We need to change that. I hope the Senate will join with me in reaffirming our commitment to support Anzac Day and support the issuing of this Centenary of Anzac commemorative medal to honour the veterans and the brave men and women of our Defence Force, who stand ready to lay down their lives for the nation's freedom.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government recognises the valour, service and sacrifice of Australia's current and former Defence Force personnel. As part of the Centenary of Anzac, the government delivered a large program of commemorations, including activities both here in Australia and internationally. Defence Force personnel have been actively involved in these commemoration activities, which continue this year. They are an appropriate way to commemorate this significant anniversary in our nation's history. However, while the government appreciates the intent behind the creation of a commemorative medal, we have no plans to create such a medal at this time. As such, we oppose part (d) of the motion and ask that the question on this part be put separately from the question on the other parts.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor supports the recognition of our current and former service personnel and the importance of participating in Anzac Day commemorations. It is right that we remember all those who have served our nation under the values of our Anzacs: courage, endurance, mateship and sacrifice. However, Labor cannot support the senator's call to create a medal of remembrance for those personnel who served during the Centenary of Anzac. Labor believes that medals are to recognise our service personnel's service and sacrifice to our country, and not to mark a point in time of their enlistment.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens believe that Anzac Day is not a day for glorifying war. We believe it is not a day for recruiting Defence Force personnel, as much as we respect our Defence Force personnel. We believe it is not a day for whipping up nationalism. I would point out to Senator Anning that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars around the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Anzac Day two years ago, when you weren't here. A number of veterans made it very clear that they thought that was a waste of money. They thought the money should have gone to supporting veterans who have served this country, rather than wasting it on attempts by this conservative government to whip up nationalism around the commemoration of Anzac Day. My father is a Vietnam vet, and his father and grandfathers were all war veterans; I know he is ambivalent about Anzac Day, as are lots of Australians. As much as anything else, it's a day to reflect on the horrors of war, the sadness that comes with war and the generations that have to bear that burden, and lest we forget that.
Just to clarify: I will be putting clauses (a) to (c) of motion No. 777 in the first instance before I put clause (d) separately. So the question is that clauses (a) to (c) of motion No. 777 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that clause (d) of motion No. 777 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Government is currently undertaking a refresh of the Closing the Gap targets;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) Aboriginal children are over-represented in child protection systems around the country, and are more than nine times more likely than their non-Aboriginal counterparts to be placed in out-of-home care,
(ii) there is a pressing need to address the underlying causes of over-representation, and improve the life outcomes of Aboriginal children taken into care, and
(iii) Aboriginal children have a right to be safe, and to be connected to kin and culture in line with the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020;
(c) recognises the need for Aboriginal-led solutions in Aboriginal communities, rather than top-down approaches from Government; and
(d) urges the Government to include reducing out-of-home care in the refreshed Closing the Gap targets, and ensure that vulnerable families are receiving the support they need for improved outcomes and safety of children.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is currently consulting with Indigenous people and state and territory governments on a refreshed Closing the Gap agenda. The government does not support this motion as it would pre-empt the outcomes of these consultations and contradict our approach to work with Indigenous people to develop new Closing the Gap targets. The safety of our children is paramount; we must focus on the reason children are being placed in out-of-home care rather than making broad statements calling for a reduction in children in care.
The question is that motion No. 779 be agreed to.
I acknowledge former senator and Deputy President Sue West in the public gallery. Welcome back to the chamber.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
I seek leave to add Senator Lines as a co-sponsor of my previous motion, No. 768.
Leave granted.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 770, standing my name for today, relating to the Uygur leader Ms Rebiya Kadeer, be taken as a formal motion. She is here in the parliament today, and the motion welcomes her to Australia.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
Yes.
The motion has been denied formality.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I find it extremely disappointing that a world leader such as Ms Kadeer is being denied a welcome through a simple motion in this chamber today. There are no reflections beyond her desire to speak for her people—10 million Uygurs who are systematically discriminated against as a minority in China. I find it abhorrent that this government cannot even be bothered to allow a motion that simply welcomes her to this country. She's here on official business and, just like any other community leader or world leader, she deserves the acknowledgement of the chamber, of the parliament and of the government. I understand that Ms Kadeer asked for an audience with our Minister for Foreign Affairs, but that has fallen on deaf ears. I urge the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, to arrange for some type of meeting to occur. (Time expired)
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
As formal motions cannot be debated or amended, they should not deal with complex and contested foreign policy matters, particularly where the motion has the potential to damage Australia's relations with other nations.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 775 standing in my name for today, concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the future submarine project, before asking that it be taken as formal.
Through you, Mr President—could you expand on that? We haven't seen anything.
Senator Patrick, you are seeking leave but no amendment has been circulated. Is it simple to explain?
It is. I'd like to amend the motion by omitting in paragraph 2 the words '28 March 2018' and substituting '10 May 2018'.
So the amendment is to paragraph 2, to change the date with respect to the minister being required to attend the Senate to make a statement from 28 March, being tomorrow, to 10 May 2018. Is leave granted for Senator Patrick to amend the motion?
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That—
(1) The Senate notes that:
(a) on 12 February 2018, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents directed at the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, for the Australian Industry Capability Plan submitted by DCNS (now Naval Group) to the Department of Defence in its response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP);
(b) the order followed a lack of clarity as to the minimum level of Australian industry involvement expectations of Government for the Future Submarine Project;
(c) on 15 February 2018, the duty minister tabled a letter in response to both orders for production claiming public interest immunity and stated that release of the document would:
(i) affect the commercial interests of Naval Group, and
(ii) adversely affect Australia's international relations, and advised the Senate that the Government was awaiting the outcome of an Information Commissioner Review into freedom of information (FOI) exemptions claimed over the same document;
(d) it was conceded by government in 1992, that the fact that a freedom of information request for information has been or could be refused under the FOI Act is not a legitimate basis for a claim of public interest immunity in a parliamentary forum;
(e) on 25 June 2014, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that declining to provide documents or answer questions on the basis that an FOI request has been made for the same information is an unacceptable response, is not supported by the FOI Act and shows a profound lack of respect for the Senate and its committees;
(f) a Senate claim of commercial confidentiality must be carefully advanced and claimed narrowly so as to recognise the public interest that lies in openness and transparency on this very important project;
(g) the claim that the release of the documents will affect international relations is not properly made out and is flawed (and has not even been advanced by the Department of Defence as a concern in the Information Commissioner Review) because the document which is the subject of the order is a document of a French-law Public Limited Company, not a document of the French State; and
(h) orders for the production of documents are a key Senate tool used to ensure effective oversight of Government, and must be responded to by Ministers with utmost consideration, care and accuracy.
(2) The Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 10 May 2018 to make a statement, of not more than 20 minutes, addressing why the Minister:
(a) has advanced a claim showing a profound lack of respect for the Senate;
(b) offered a broad confidentiality claim that does not correctly balance the public interest in knowing what DCNS promised, in respect of Australian industry involvement in our largest ever Defence project; and
(c) has advanced a claim that releasing the document to the Senate would affect Australia's international relations knowing that this claim is inconsistent with the position of her own Department.
(3) Any senator may move a motion to take note of the Minister's statement, and any such motion may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all other government business until determined.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
On 14 February, the government made a public interest immunity claim and noted that the Information Commissioner is also conducting a separate review of a freedom-of-information request for the same documents. The government maintains this position and does not believe that a further statement to the Senate by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry is necessary at this time.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The process of the Senate seeking to inform itself and the process of citizens to gain access to information through FOI are very different. Some of the public interest immunity and FOI exemptions are similar—I concede. I note that they do have different thresholds, but they are definitely separate processes. Refusing to table documents on the grounds that a decision on FOI is still pending is not appropriate. I also note that the public interest immunity claim of the minister—that is, damage to international relations—is in disagreement with her own department.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens will be supporting this motion. We support increased transparency across the board but particularly in relation to matters of defence. We would say that we probably have a philosophical disagreement with the Xenophon party in the sense that we'd actually like to see the documents and the logic behind having these very expensive submarines in the first place. But, nevertheless, we will support the intent of this motion.
The question is that motion No. 775, as amended, be agreed to.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today two proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result I inform the Senate the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The need for Australia to phase out existing thermal coalmining and coal-fired power stations, commit to no new coalmines and make sure coal reliant communities are fairly transitioned into new and meaningful employment.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
This is a matter of public importance to many in the Australian community but particularly those in my own state of Queensland. It is time to put the community first, ahead of the interests of the coal corporations. Everybody knows that the coal corporations, many of them offshore entities and their front organisations, have been donating millions of dollars to the two parties of the establishment for many years now. It is clear that this perversion of the public policy process is holding back our communities from the opportunity to effectively, fairly and appropriately transition to an economic future that works for our entire nation, and particularly for regional communities.
Just recently, the Boom andbust report in 2018, commissioned by CoalSwarm, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, tracks the use of power plants globally. It shows that coal-fired power demand continues to decline, primarily due to government regulations and policy changes in China and declining financial and policy support in India—the two most populous nations on the planet, of course. Yet, in this place, we see the coalition government, certainly with the support of the Labor Party in terms of the government in Queensland, continue to back the Adani Carmichael mine and continue to back the potential opening up and expansion of a whole new, massive thermal coal deposit in the Galilee Basin. Until we can get a clear policy commitment that recognises the need to phase out existing thermal coalmining and coal-fired power stations and a commitment to not open up any new thermal coalmines, we will continue to have regional communities being torn in different directions and will continue to have the threat of public resources being put towards stranded assets at great public cost that will not deliver a viable economic future for our communities and will certainly not deliver the energy prices, the energy certainty and the energy policies that all of our community needs.
The Greens, of course, have campaigned for many years with significant success at getting our country and countries around the world to transition to renewable energy. Despite the massive and incredibly dishonest propaganda campaign from some in the corporate media who are backing the coal lobby and the fossil fuel lobby, it is clear that this transition to renewable energy has assisted in keeping prices down from where they would otherwise have been. If it hadn't been for the extraordinary vandalism of this current government in destroying the carbon price signal that was put in place by the previous Labor government with the strong support and encouragement of the Greens, we would have far lower energy prices now, with much lower carbon emissions as well. We would be further down the track of transitioning to an alternative future that provides stable, secure, sustainable jobs for people in our regional communities.
Indeed, the parts of the climate package that the Greens were successful in having adopted under the previous government—particularly the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, with its support and assistance for new renewable energy projects—have delivered thousands and thousands of ongoing jobs as well as construction jobs. They have delivered an expansion in reliable energy. With further investment in this area, we can effectively transition, but not until we can get a clear recognition of the need to get that basic commitment to not opening up new coalmines and instead to properly investing in industries and employment in regional communities. Those industries and opportunities are there already. Some of the existing jobs, particularly in areas like tourism, are put at risk by the continual attempt to turn a blind eye to the major environmental impacts that come from not winding back our fossil fuel emissions as quickly as possible. We're seeing this continually, in all parts of the country, and certainly in Queensland—for example, in Northern Queensland, where people have to pay massively higher insurance premiums because of the reality of more severe weather events coming down the track. We need to transition, and the sooner we do it the better it will be for the Australian people. (Time expired)
Let me explain why the Greens' policies are causing so much damage to our environment. I'll make it very clear so that everyone can understand. Let's look at fuel levels and bushfires in national parks. We've seen so much country locked up and left. And, when you lock country up and leave it, what happens? The rain falls, the grass grows, the fuel levels get higher and higher, the lightning strikes, or the fire starts for some reason, and, once you have more than 150 tonnes of fuel per hectare, and once you have more than 50-kilometre-per-hour winds and a more than 40-degree day, the fire is uncontrollable. Take the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, a very sad event: 90 million tonnes of CO2. But these are the Greens: 'Lock up the country, leave it and burn it.'
Twice now in the last six years I've seen the Pilliga scrub, up near where I live, burn from end to end. And they're doing a survey now and wondering why 90 per cent of the koalas are dead. There has been a 90 per cent reduction in the population of koalas in the Pilliga scrub. At our farm, we're very pleased with the great koala populations we have. They don't die, they don't get burnt, because we graze the country; we keep the fuel levels down and look after them. But these are the Greens: 'Lock up the country.' We were talking yesterday about forests and the milling jobs in Victoria. There are national parks everywhere. Take the red gum forests down the river. They will burn and they will destroy those forests as sure as I am talking to you now. Why? It's because they'll take them from forestry to national park, and they won't allow the stockpeople to run their cattle and graze the country and keep the fuel levels down, and then the savage, severe fires will start off and burn like all blazes, destroying the forests from the native grass seed on the ground up into the crowns of the trees, killing the trees. And this is called conservation, Greens-style!
Let me go on. Remember when they wanted to have the big carbon tax. This is a classic. They said, 'Let's put this great big carbon tax on Australian industries.' Look at the cement industry. I remember the figures well. In Australia, we produce 10 million tonnes of cement a year. When we produce a tonne of cement, we produce 0.8 of a tonne of CO2. So, for our 10 million tonnes of cement, there's eight million tonnes of CO2 from producing that cement. In China, they produce one billion tonnes of cement a year, roughly, but, for every tonne they produce, it's 1.1 tonnes of CO2. So let's tax the crikey out of Australian industry with a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme or however you want to do it, and shut down the cement industry in Australia. Instead of getting those 10 million tonnes produced here in Australia for eight million tonnes of CO2, we'll shift it to China, where the 10 million tonnes will produce 11 million tonnes of CO2, another three million tonnes, for the same product. This is conservation, Greens-style!
Six months ago I went to the Library here for information. When you have a coal-fired generator, one generation unit is one unit. If you go to Bayswater or Liddell, you'll see four cooling towers. They are four-unit generators. Just recently, there have been how many new coal-fired generation units constructed around the world? The answer is 621. There are 621 units under construction or just completed. Let's go through some of those figures. For example, in China they are constructing 299 new coal-fired power generation units to add to their 2,107 units. Those 299 units will produce an extra 677 million tonnes of CO2. Australia produces 550 million tonnes, holus-bolus, in the whole economy. The extra coal-fired power generation units being built in China will produce more CO2 than the whole of Australia.
The Greens have to get their heads around this. These coal-fired generators—guess what they're going to burn. They're going to burn coal—c-o-a-l. Do they burn brown, dirty coal from China or less productive coal from Indonesia, or do they burn a more efficient, black coal from Australia? That's the question. No. You want to shut down every coalmine in Australia, let all these coal-fired generators be built around the world and let them burn less efficient coal, putting out more emissions. This is crazy. Let's look at the coal-fired generation stations being built: 132 extra in India, an extra 288 million tonnes of CO2; 10 in Japan; 22 units being constructed in the Philippines; 34 units being constructed in Vietnam, to produce another 67 million tonnes of CO2. But no; the Greens say, 'Do away with coal.' There is a Green religion going on. They want to stop our live exports of animals, sending beef producers and lamb and sheep producers into poverty. This Green religion is a very simple religion. It says: 'Come follow me, and I'll lead you to the land of poverty.' That's what it means.
It means expensive electricity. Renewable energies are good. They go on, supposedly, forever. But take one wind turbine—just one, three megawatts. If it spins eight hours a day, 365 days a year, it produces all those renewable energy certificates at $80 a certificate. We—and, when I say 'we', I mean everyone who is hooked up to the electricity grid: this building, the abattoirs, the manufacturers, the widow pensioners—pay $700,000 a year to each wind turbine before they sell one watt of electricity. That is $700,000 in subsidy, and everyone who is hooked up to the grid is paying for it. The retailers have to charge it. You wonder why these foreign companies are coming here and setting up all these big wind turbines. It's because they can earn so much money, take the money back home to their country, and we suckers are paying for this, and we think we are changing the planet.
As Dr Finkel told Senator Macdonald at Senate estimates, we can abolish all of our emissions in Australia, the whole lot—we can't abolish them all, because three people breathing in a year actually produce a tonne of CO2—and it will make no difference to the planet whatsoever. The Greens and those opposite have to realise one day that we don't have a tent over our country. There is not a tent over Australia. We are actually linked to the world when it comes to the atmosphere. But you want to put all these costs on and shut down our coalmining industry. I just can't understand why the CFMEU, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, ever give money to the Greens-Labor Party. I can never work that out. Construction—the Greens hate it. Forestry—the Greens hate it. Mining—the Greens hate it. Energy—'Cut out all the mining jobs for the workers from the CFMEU.' It is unbelievable that that union has paid so much money to the Greens and those opposite, the Labor Party. We've got Mr Shorten, who hates coal when he's in—
Senator Farrell interjecting—
You'll get your chance in a minute, Senator Farrell. Interjections are disorderly. Why does he hate coal when he's in Melbourne for the Batman by-election—
Senator Farrell interjecting—
Senator Farrell! Senator Williams, please address your comments through the chair.
Playing up like a second-hand Victa lawnmower, isn't he, Madam Acting Deputy President!
Let Senator Williams be heard in silence.
Senator Farrell interjecting—
Senator Farrell, you are now being disorderly. Please let Senator Williams continue.
I thought he was going to make a pretty good leader, but now I think Senator Wong's better. But, don't worry, there will be others coming behind. There's another maiden speech coming up today. They won't want to sit on the back bench for long, I can assure you, Senator Farrell. One today has been used to sitting down the front. Remember before, when you stepped aside for Senator Wong. You took a bit of a holiday from this place—
: Senator Williams, you know you should address your comments through the chair.
Sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, I've got to go through you. I'd forgotten about that. My sincere apologies.
Would you sit down! We want to hear Kristina Keneally.
Senator Farrell, please allow Senator Williams to continue. Senator Moore is actually up next.
Dear, oh dear! Is it any wonder Senator Wong sacked him? Fair dinkum! And to think the bloke took leave from this place to give Senator Wong a leg-up in the leadership! However, I go back to the real issue: coal. The Greens religion, which those opposite support totally, is: put the electricity prices up, drive our industries overseas, shut them down. I don't know why they don't like workers. I don't know why they've got such a set against workers. The dear old Labor Party! Do you remember: the Labor Party was started by the shearers under the Tree of Knowledge at Barcaldine in Queensland? Who are the shearers in the parliament now? There's Andrew Broad from the Nationals in the other chamber and John Williams from the National Party in this chamber. Those people opposite wouldn't know how to load a handpiece, let alone how to knock the wool off a sheep. You're not the workers party; you're the unions party. They are getting a free ride, and now you're turning your back to it. You'll be up here, supporting the Greens' motion today—supporting it all the way through—promoting the Greens religion, sending the country broke and sending the jobs overseas. That's what it's all about.
We know how they're joined at the ankles. We know that Labor and the Greens are sharing their preferences. I wonder if things will change when the leadership changes. I wonder if they'll change. When Senator Keneally is leading the opposition in government, I wonder how it'll look then. I reckon it'll probably look a fair bit better, although I don't know.
A lot better than your mob!
We're not going there. I want to go back to New South Wales and back to this issue of coal. Buy our cleaner, inefficient coal in Australia or buy the dirty coal from overseas. There are 621 units of coal-fired power generation being constructed around the world now, and somehow the Greens, with their colleagues the Labor Party, are going to change the planet. As Senator Cormann said this week, they are dreaming—they are simply dreaming. As Dr Finkel said, you're not going to change a thing. Three humans breathing produce one tonne of CO2 in the year. The 1.5 billion people breathing in China produce as much CO2 as the nation of Australia does as a whole. No, I shouldn't say that; you'll put a breath tax on us. That'll be next, with all of your taxation going forward. This is a stupid Greens religion, and it needs to be knocked on the head.
In the short time while I'm the lead-up act for Senator Keneally's first speech, it's important to know that, in terms—
I thought I did that!
No, you didn't, Senator Williams. It's always really important to find something in any of these motions with which you can agree. In this afternoon's matter of public importance from the Greens, the last sentence is one we can support, which is to:
… make sure coal reliant communities are fairly transitioned into new and meaningful employment.
Indeed, that's a key element of Labor policy. We accept, and our policies are clear on the fact, that, through the massive changes that will have to happen, we need to move into an area of production that looks much more clearly at green production of energy and we need to look at renewables much more. Our policies are there, they're clearly on record, and we talk about our commitment to ensuring that we have a renewable energy source in this nation.
But this particular motion, which says we'll just cut down coal straightaway—no more approvals—just does not meet the reality test. There's a lot of work that has to be done and not just from on high in government, and certainly not just through the NEG, the fabulous 24-page document that doesn't give us much detail at all. What we need to do is ensure that communities understand the value of a green future and understand the value, the work opportunities and the future of renewable energies. We need to work with communities that now are featured in and focused very seriously on the coal industry. We need to ensure that they feel part of the changes that will take place and that must take place.
This just-transition clause is one on which we need to concentrate and on which we can be united right across this chamber. But going into long, deep diatribes about the value of coal, lugging lumps of coal into the parliament area and talking about this issue will not make for a just transition. It will not ensure that we have the information available to us so that we can plan into the future and we can put in place the kinds of policies that many people have spoken about in this place over many years. In terms of our future, we acknowledge that that must happen. In terms of working together, that's where there can be effective processes and effective movements that engage with people locally and look at the people who have the knowledge. We had the beginning of that. We had the government's Finkel review, the one that we strongly supported. The Finkel review spent months travelling around our nation, talking with people about the different forms of energy and talking with communities about how they felt about energy in their communities, how they felt about their futures. It acknowledged the vulnerabilities and the fears of many people in many communities who felt that their way of life, their history and their families' futures were being put at risk and that they did not understand the change. That's the difference in which we can all play a part. We can play a part in ensuring that the transitions in the future are understood, and that people are part of those processes and don't feel as though they are being victimised, demonised or labelled.
We have spoken many times in this place about how we need to look at having an effective energy future for our country. This is not just for our country; this is part of an international debate. We are not only talking about the impact that's happening in our own nation; we are part of an international struggle, an international focus that must look at getting the best possible future. This includes the best production of energy, engagement with communities and moving to a place where there is an effective, efficient focus on renewable energy. Senator Williams doesn't seem to be particularly active in this transition. He doesn't seem to want to be part of the process. Good shearer that he is, we need to ensure that he's part of the focus as we go into the future. In terms of Labor Party policies, we have said consistently that we acknowledge there has been a history of coal in our nation, and we are proud of that history—we have worked with the people who are in those communities working in the production of those elements, and in the way that has provided energy for many people over decades—but that time is passed. We need to work at combining the coal industry, while it continues, with the renewable energy industry into the future.
The process that we have in front of us doesn't take into account the need to have that cooperation, the need to have that engagement. It doesn't ensure that we look realistically at where there is need for continuing coal production or look at each proposal for the development of new production across the existing processes in place. Do they meet the environmental standards that we have in place? Do they meet the kinds of issues that communities need to keep them strong and to ensure that there is effective employment and the long-term building of communities, which has been such a feature in my home state of Queensland? You can go through the coal areas in Queensland and see communities that have been vibrant, that have been developed over the years: they have set up their own hospitals, their own schools, their own community networks. That cannot be just wiped out with a single movement, as much as some people think it can happen. There are work opportunities so that we do not actually victimise or demonise a whole element of our community. And if we do go down that track, we'll be back here fighting across the chamber and not being able to get the real work done.
There does seem to be agreement on many of these issues in this place. There's an acknowledgement that renewable energy can, and will, work, but there seems to be a legacy somewhere that refuses to see that these can work together. The legacy sees that it's going to be an open battle. It does not need to be that way, but that seems to be the reaction we had to the Finkel review. All the work that was done by Professor Finkel and his team, which looked at putting those things in place and looked at the future, was seemingly dismissed by the government when they threw that report out and came up with their own proposal. We still haven't seen all the details of that proposal, and, until we see the details, we're going to have people—those people who will be immediately impacted by any changes that come down—still lost, still confused and still unaware about where they and their communities fit.
This motion doesn't actually address what we need to do in Australia. It makes a straight comment with all the rhetoric about how we have to move immediately and not have any more coalmining in this country. It makes that flat point, immediately taking the offensive and immediately dividing—not trying to build an argument or to build a community, but just dividing it—and then the way that we need to have a just transition is tacked on to the end of it. I would value this discussion much more if we led with the second part of the statement. If the Greens, who put this forward, led with, 'We need to have the just transition', then we could work on it—and there is the willingness to do that. But why begin with the attack, other than to make a political statement? Why not go straight to the fact that there is commonality of purpose and commonality of understanding—
Honourable senators interjecting—
and I'm wondering when the commonality of understanding will allow me to finish speaking! Nonetheless, in terms of where we're going to go in this place, we will have the opportunity. There will be further debates in this place, there is nothing surer. We had almost the same debate last week, with probably much the same speakers taking probably much the same points. But as long as that debate is solely in this place, we will not be able to move forward. This discussion needs to be out in the communities that will be the focus of the change. These discussions need to be had in the coalmining areas of our nation. It doesn't matter which state—Queensland, in particular, or New South Wales or Tasmania—wherever there are existing coalmines, we need to have a very open discussion with those communities. We need to work out what the future is going to be and put forward the strong arguments and the actual realities of renewable energy. This is no longer some pie-in-the-sky idea that people are able to do in academic areas. Renewable energy is an active, vibrant industry which will be able to promote employment and maintain communities.
That will be the focus of our discussion—the maintenance of respect and the need for effective communities—rather than once again taking philosophical positions, refusing to have open discussion, refusing to have any kind of communication. By blaming and labelling, we ensure that people continue to feel that they have no place in the argument, that they will not be respected and that, once again, from on high, they, their families and their futures will be ignored. Again, there'll be this growing displacement—this growing fact that parliaments and governments do not understand the needs of real communities across our whole nation.
Order! Pursuant to a resolution of the Senate, we now interrupt business for the first speech of Senator Keneally. Before I call Senator Keneally, I remind the Senate of the usual courtesies extended to a senator on their first speech. Senator Keneally.
Thank you, Mr President. In the year before this chamber opened, 1987, just after I graduated from high school, I took a job on an assembly line at Johns-Manville, a fibreglass manufacturer who had two factories in my hometown of Waterville, Ohio. The work was tedious and hot. But the hourly rate was good, compared to other jobs, and it helped me save for my up-front university fees. I worked eight-hour shifts, sometimes 12 hours, on a crew of four. We wore these heavy canvas jumpsuits. When slivers of fibreglass got caught between the canvas collar and the back of our necks, or in the space between the cuff and the inside of the wrist, the itching would drive us crazy.
We operated one end of a giant machine that made these huge sheets of white fibreglass. Our job was to get the fibreglass off the machine and wrapped in plastic. Our product looked like massive paper towel rolls as we shipped them down the line. My main responsibility was to attach adhesive tape to a four-metre-long rotating spindle so it could grab the next sheet of fibreglass as it came off the machine. The spindle rotated at about three kilometres an hour. I was told to stand back three metres, holding the tape on a specially designed hook, and given a safety stop switch.
Months earlier, a young woman named Leslie Lambert had my job. She did not have the same safety equipment or practices. When Leslie was working there, the spindle rotated at about 20 kilometres an hour. There was no instruction to stand three metres back. There was no hook or safety switch. One afternoon Leslie was caught by the adhesive tape and spun around 10 times, cracking her head and back on to the machine, before she was thrown to the floor. She died. Leslie was 19.
I never met Leslie but I know from her obituary that, like me, she was putting herself through university. I also know that she, like me, was a member of the Teamsters union—a union which had been pushing for safer conditions in that very factory. Only a few months separated Leslie and me—a few months between a dangerous workplace and a safe one. And yet the difference is also 31 years—31 years in which Leslie Lambert has lain in a grave in East Swanton, Ohio, 31 years in which I have been able to raise a family, study, work, travel and simply be alive. I know that the Teamsters Union made their members' safety at work a priority. I know that they had my back as a worker—and I have never forgotten that. The importance of a safe workplace and the role that unions play in keeping workers safe is seared into my very existence. Here in the Senate, I will continue to fight alongside my colleagues in the union movement for all Australians to be paid a living wage and for all workers to be safe at work.
I thank you, Mr President, and all Senate colleagues for the kind reception I've received and for the opportunity to make a first speech today. I recognise the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and I pay my respect to elders and thank them for their custodianship of country. Alongside those words of respect, I want to restate my support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I believe it is within the imagination and the capacity of Australians to amend our Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of this land and to accord First Nations peoples a long-overdue voice in this parliament.
As I arrive in the Senate, I acknowledge the service of my friend and predecessor Sam Dastyari. I don't think I have met anyone who is as passionate about politics as him, and yet Sam's greatest gift is his capacity to engage with people who have no interest in politics whatsoever. I thank him for his service to our movement and I wish him every success in whatever he turns his hand to next. I thank especially my Labor colleagues, including Don Farrell and Penny Wong, for their warm welcome to the federal caucus. My arrival changes our internal dynamic somewhat. The Labor Senate team is now 61 per cent female. The New South Wales Labor Senate team of O'Neill, McAllister, Keneally and Cameron is 75 per cent female—and 50 per cent very strange accents!
Speak for yourself!
I'm sorry, I didn't understand that! I thank my Australian family and friends for their presence in the chamber today. Many of them were also in attendance 15 years ago, when I gave my first inaugural speech as the member for Heffron in the New South Wales parliament. It is humbling to have a second go at a first speech and to share it with friends old and new.
My parents, John and Cathy Kerscher, and my brothers, Kevin and Jeff, are in the United States. I wish they could be here. I thank my parents for the magnificent start to life that they gave me and my brothers. I am both a seventh-generation Australian, through my mother, and a migrant to this country. I came to Australia from the United States in 1994 under the skilled migration program. Despite the fact that my mother was born in Brisbane and an Australian citizen at the time of my birth, the patriarchal nature of Australian citizenship laws in 1968 did not allow my mother to pass on citizenship by descent. However, Mr President, I can assure you that not only did I take Australian citizenship in 2000 but I renounced my American citizenship in 2002.
When I gave my first first speech in the New South Wales parliament in 2003, I outlined three commitments that I said had shaped my life and that I wanted to shape my political contribution: a passion for social justice, the importance of community and living life with energy and enthusiasm. I did my best to live up to those ideals. The Keneally government started the first program in Australia of government issued social impact bonds. We put caring for people with a disability at the centre of government. We changed the law to legalise same-sex adoption. We lowered public transport fares and made trains run on time 95 per cent of the time. Our emergency department waiting times were the best in the country. We funded schools and TAFE properly. We kept 11,000 people in work during the GFC and avoided a recession in New South Wales. We drove the development of Barangaroo. We did these things while cutting taxes and keeping the budget in surplus and the AAA rating intact through the GFC.
But I don't pretend we did everything perfectly or right. The Keneally government sold electricity assets in the already privatised retail sector and we sold the generation rights while retaining state ownership of the power stations. In doing so, we completed the transactions begun by the Iemma and Rees governments. I stand by those sales. The O'Farrell government's inquiry into the electricity transactions found that we acted with integrity, achieved value for the taxpayer and took the best options available to us. But Labor in New South Wales did not explain the reasons for the transactions well enough or often enough, and, as a result, we did not take the community with us.
For the past three decades, governments around the world have undertaken the privatisation of government owned assets and services. There can be good reasons to do this. But I have yet to see compelling evidence that privatising monopoly public assets—for example, the electricity distribution system of poles and wires—provides an economic or social benefit to the community at large, to the government's budget over the long term or to workers. We serve in a community, not an economy. We must always guard against an uncritical faith in the market and the private sector, especially when it comes to the delivery of core public services. A society is only healthy when its most vulnerable members are supported, protected and included. Fairness doesn't trickle down. Building a society that includes all of us is a job for all of us, and that is why I am a member of the Australian Labor Party.
I'm also proud that Bill Shorten and federal Labor's first major commitment in 2018 is to create a national integrity commission, because a government loses its authority if individual members of that government betray the community's trust. One might imagine that this fact alone would be enough to motivate elected representatives to act ethically. Yet history in New South Wales—indeed, all jurisdictions in Australia and governments of all stripes—teaches us otherwise. What I and the people of New South Wales know from ICAC inquiries is that, when people choose to act corruptly, they do it in secret. When it comes to safeguarding trust in our democracy, sunlight isn't just an effective disinfectant; it is an essential precondition. All of us in this place serve a sacred trust—the people's trust—and I remain hopeful that a national integrity commission can become a bipartisan project.
Looking forward, I come to Canberra ready to join Labor's efforts to reduce economic inequality. Labor is at its best when we prosecute redistributive progressive policies, take on vested interests and explain clearly the benefits to working people. This is what Bob Hawke and Gough Whitlam did so well in campaigning for an end to restrictive trade practices. It's what Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and Bill Kelty did when they advocated for lower tariffs and labour market reforms, balanced by improved social wages and private savings. Such progressive reforms demonstrate our best policy and our most effective campaigns—effective because they demonstrate whose side we are on. Labor rightly argues that Australia cannot sustain giving tax breaks and cash back to the wealthiest in our community, while penalising the poor and demanding that pensioners, low- and middle-income earners and students bear the brunt of budget repair. Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen are showing the same policy courage and core commitments as Whitlam, Hawke and Keating as they prosecute Labor's positions on negative gearing, family trusts and dividend imputation.
I also look forward to promoting Labor's plans for cleaner, greener and cheaper energy. Fifteen years ago in New South Wales, Jenny McAllister and I started a small advocacy group called the Labor Environment Action Network. Today, LEAN is a national body in the Labor Party. It engages our rank and file to develop and promote good environmental policy within the Labor movement and the community. LEAN successfully campaigned within the party for a 50 per cent renewable energy target. Scott Morrison once described LEAN as 'an infiltration of radical activists within the Labor Party'—a solar cell, if you will. Senator McAllister, now that we are both here, I guess the infiltration is complete!
To be completely candid, I never imagined I would come back to politics, not because I lost faith in political action with the Australian Labor Party, not because I lost faith in myself; simply put, I thought my race was run. The privilege and the opportunity to serve as an MP, a minister, the 42nd Premier of New South Wales and the first woman to hold that office—indeed, in the first government in Australia to be led by two women—was more than one could hope for in a political lifetime. I'm filled with gratitude to those who supported me, especially the rank and file Labor members in Heffron. I never expected so much, and I couldn't ask for more.
My time out of politics did allow me to pursue particular passions, such as working with Stillbirth Foundation Australia to raise awareness and much-needed money for research. Twenty-two hundred babies in Australia are stillborn each year. That's six babies a day—six babies who die every day in Australia. Surely we can do better than this as a nation. On 18 June 1999, one of those babies was my daughter, Caroline. The rate of stillbirth has not changed in Australia for decades. It's a national public health crisis, with major economic impact and a devastating effect on families. When it comes to stillbirth prevention, there are things that we know that we're not telling parents, and there are things we don't know, but we could, if we changed how we collected data and how we funded research. I thank all members of the Senate for voting today to hold a select committee inquiry into stillbirth. And, as a senator, I will continue to make stillbirth research and prevention a priority.
I gratefully acknowledge the many organisations who've allowed me to contribute to their important work these past few years, including Basketball Australia, Opportunity International, the Macquarie Graduate School of Management, the United States Studies Centre, The Guardian newspaper, Catholics for Ministry, the Referendum Council, and Souths Cares, the charitable arm of the mighty South Sydney Rabbitohs—and, of course, Sky News.
When I told my 17-year-old son that I was nominating for the Senate, he said, 'Oh, great. Now I'm going to have to listen to people telling me all the time how they saw you on television talking about politics.' I pointed out that talking about politics on television is exactly what I had been doing for the past three years, and he said, 'Don't take this the wrong way, Mum, but I don't know anyone who watches Sky News.' It may come as a surprise to my son, but there are people who watch Sky News. Many of them are in this building. Some of them I could even identify when they popped up on our segment, 'Name that MP'.
The people I worked with closely at Sky were collegial, smart and hardworking. By far, the best part of my job at Sky was to co-host with Peter van Onselen. PVO is intelligent, sharp, quick witted and occasionally funny. As a journalist, his loyalty is always to the truth. Now that I'm here, I accept that occasionally he'll need to offer his frank public assessments of my political positions. And, PVO, I would expect no less. I also loved that Sky allowed me to experience the adrenalin rush of live news coverage. There is nothing quite like it—well, almost nothing.
I said that I'd thought my time in politics was over, and I had made my peace with that. But when the call came from Bill Shorten to stand as Labor's candidate in Bennelong, I knew the moment he called that I would say yes. Rationally, it made no sense. A 10 per cent margin is a significant hurdle, especially when the well-liked incumbent is still in the race. And I do, as I did on election night, congratulate John Alexander on his win. But I said yes anyway, because I knew that Labor would mount a strong case, despite the odds in the seat, and because I believe there are fights worth having on behalf of working people against vested interests, on behalf of ordinary Australians against inequality and disadvantage, and on behalf of communities that have been forgotten and taken for granted for too long. And if life in the Labor tradition teaches you anything, it's that sometimes it's not the victory but the struggle. We did not win in Bennelong but we put our case and made our argument. And we had incredible support in doing so, especially from Sally McManus and the ACTU, Mark Morey and Unions NSW, and the many trade union secretaries and supporters in New South Wales that I have known and worked with for many years.
I thank the many federal Labor colleagues who supported the Bennelong campaign, including, of course, Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Chris Bowen, Anthony Albanese, Michelle Rowland, Jason Clare, Ed Husic, Catherine King, Amanda Rishworth, Jenny Macklin, Joel Fitzgibbon, Matt Thistlethwaite, Deb O'Neill, Penny Wong, Doug Cameron, Jacinta Collins, Jenny McAllister and Tony Burke. The Bennelong campaign was well coordinated by the exceptional New South Wales ALP General Secretary Kaila Murnain, Assistant Secretary Pat Garcia and state organiser David Dobson. I also thank Korena Flanagan, Sabina Husic, Jerome and Karen Laxale, Peter Kim, the rank and file Labor Party members in Bennelong, and Young Labor.
Our army of 4,000 volunteers is now a campaign machine. When I visited the Batman campaign two weeks ago, it was obvious that many of the volunteers who cut their political teeth in Bennelong were now helping elect the fabulous Ged Kearney. It would've been terrific to achieve a Batman result in Bennelong, but the swing we did achieve will see 21 seats change hands at the next general election. The Bennelong campaign showed Labor's passion and determination for a more equal Australia. We will take that fight up again at the next federal election. The Bennelong campaign reminded me why I was drawn to politics in the first place. For all its faults and failings, this place is where you get to turn campaign promises into community progress. This is where we continue the 117-year-old project of building a better and more equal Australia, and there is nowhere else I would rather be.
In conclusion, I thank my family, friends, former advisers and staff and my new Senate staff members, who are here today. Each one of you has in some way inspired me, supported me, challenged me or buoyed me, and I am a better person for your presence. I especially thank the people who, early on in my career, gave me good advice and opportunities to test myself—John Watkins, Michael Egan, Bob Carr, Sandra Nori and Barry Unsworth—and my long-time personal friends Chris Siorokos, Emma Maiden, Kate O'Rourke, James Hmelnitsky, Catriona Webster and Dave Ingham. My cousin from Sweden, Jessica Karlsson, is in the chamber. Our shared ancestor, Neil Anton Anderson, jumped ship in Brisbane in 1884. I doubt he could have imagined this gathering of his descendants in the Australian Senate today.
To the extended Keneally family here today—Patrick, Stella, Josie, Matt, Tilly, Sam, Kate and Tom—and the ones who couldn't get here—Bonnie, Zach, Tim, Nyna, Elsie, Dan, Daisy, Ted, Jane, Margaret and Judy—thank you for the years of love and support. A very special thank you to my mother-in-law, Jane Keneally, who is a great example of generous and joyous love. I know she joins with me in wishing that her late husband, my father-in-law, Dr John Keneally AM, could be here tonight.
And I of course thank my husband, Ben. In 2003, I told the NSW parliament that Ben Keneally is the greatest husband and father in the world. It was a bold statement. My evidence base was small; we'd only been married for seven years. After 22 years, I can advise that I did not mislead the parliament! Ben gives me and our children unconditional, patient, supportive and generous love every single day. Nothing I have done or ever will do is possible without Ben. Ben quoted a Billy Bragg song when he proposed to me. Let me now quote one back to express how I feel about him:
The sun came up, the trees began to sing.
The light shone in on everything.
I love you.
Finally, I dedicate this speech to my three children. Our daughter Caroline never drew breath, but she changed me forever. She enlarged my understanding of love and loss, and she taught me to survive. She made me brave, almost fearless. Our sons, Daniel and Brendan, are now young men. They are the sunshine in my life. My sons are confident, generous, hardworking and community minded. I am so proud of them. No matter what else I might do on this earth, being Daniel and Brendan's mother is the best role I'll ever have. For them, and for all young people in Australia, I want to help build a stronger, fairer and more generous nation. And now that this first speech is done, it's time to get on with that task. Thank you.
I seek leave to provide an update to the Senate about the government's progress in relation to our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan.
Leave granted.
I thank the Senate. We believe that:
… cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
We also believe that:
… lowering the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses only—
as the Greens used to propose—
creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize. In worse case scenarios some businesses might actually lay people off to get smaller—and the size-based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth. Instead we want a level playing field regardless of the size of the company.
We also believe that the burden of a higher company tax rate falls hardest on workers rather than wealthy shareholders. We believe that it is in Australia's national interest that 'the nation should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax rate' over time, and we do understand that 'that is not an easy thing to do'.
If all of these comments I have just made sound familiar, that is because I have shamelessly plagiarised them from Mr Bill Shorten and Mr Chris Bowen—literally.
The truth is that the big businesses of today were the small businesses of yesteryear. Small businesses today want to become bigger businesses. We want small businesses today to become bigger businesses. We want there to be small businesses across Australia today that will be become the big champion businesses of Australia in the future, operating as a global champion for Australia in a globally competitive environment. That is what we want. We want small businesses in Australia today to aspire to become the BHP, the Qantas, the FMG and the Woodside—you name it—of tomorrow. That's what all of us should aspire to. We should all want that because we all know that big businesses and small businesses together create the jobs that help Australian families get ahead.
We don't want bigger businesses to become smaller businesses. If we put our bigger businesses at a competitive disadvantage by forcing them to pay higher taxes than that which is paid by businesses that compete in other parts of the world, they will become smaller than they otherwise would be. A smaller business will hire fewer people than they otherwise would; a smaller business will pay less in wages than they otherwise would, because if they hire fewer people and, if lots of businesses across Australia end up hiring fewer people, there'll be less competition for workers and, as there's less competition for workers, there would be less pressure on wages moving forward.
We want more investment, we want more jobs, we want higher wages, but more jobs and higher wages don't grow on trees. They are created and paid for by successful, profitable businesses. If we can get more businesses to be more successful and more profitable, they will, as they grow and expand—as small businesses of the past have done in years gone by—hire more people and they will have to pay them higher wages. In fact, having more businesses being more successful and more profitable is the only sustainable way to create more jobs and deliver higher wages. This is basic common sense and a basic economic truth, yet, for some reason in Australia today, it is a contested proposition. It never used to be. It used to be a bipartisan consensus that, if we wanted more investment into the Australian economy and if we wanted more investment into future business growth, then, of course, we needed to have a globally competitive business tax rate. Surely, everyone can accept that, if you make it harder for business to be successful and profitable, they will only hire fewer people and, hence, create fewer jobs. Surely, that is basic common sense. How can a business which is less successful in selling its products and services in Australia or around the world hire more people and pay them more? I mean, it just doesn't add up.
So that is the case that we have been making as a government over the last two years. The Senate is aware that this time last year we passed the first three years of our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan successfully through the Senate and, of course, we thank the Senate for having supported the first three years of our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan, which reduced the corporate tax rate for all businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million down to 25 per cent. That was a hotly contested proposition last year, too. It was hotly contested by the Labor Party, yet, if you look at what has happened in Australia over the last 12 months, more than 420,000 new jobs have been created. Wages growth is picking up; wages growth today is stronger than it was last year. We want wages growth to continue to strengthen and that is why we will continue to make the case as to why it is so critically important that Australia has a globally competitive business tax rate, not just for some businesses, but for all businesses—because, in the end, we are all in this together. Big business does not only employ a lot of people directly; it also buys goods and services from the many thousands and thousands of small and medium sized businesses. The more successful a big business is the more people they'll be able to hire directly, and the more they'll be able to pay them in wages, the more they'll be able to invest in their future growth and expansion, the more goods and services they can buy from small and medium sized businesses, and the more profitable they are the more tax they will pay. Look at what has happened to corporate tax receipts.
Oh, yeah? I've heard that before.
Senator Cameron is laughing, but, if you look at what has happened to corporate tax receipts since we cut company tax for businesses with turnovers of up to $50 million, they're actually going up. For the first two months of this year, company tax receipts are $3 billion—
For two months!
In only two months company tax receipts are $3 billion higher than was forecast in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December. It stands to reason that, if you have more businesses that are more successful and more profitable and that hire more Australians, they'll be able to pay them better wages. As competition for workers increases they'll have to pay them higher wages, irrespective of what it is that businesses would spontaneously feel that they should pay.
Only a few short weeks ago no-one thought we had any chance of getting anywhere near the necessary support to pass the next phase of our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. Everybody knows the maths in the Senate. The coalition has 30 members of its Senate party room—and they of course are a fantastic team who are strongly supporting the important need for our enterprise tax plan. We've also of course had very consistent and very reliable support from Senators Leyonhjelm, Bernardi and Anning all the way through for the good public policy of making sure that our businesses are not disadvantaged and can hire more Australians and pay them better wages, and we thank them for that. We thank Senator Martin, who last week, after having engaged in a series of discussions with the government, indicated publically that he will support the government's Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. I would also like to thank in particular Senator Hanson and the One Nation team of Senators Burston and Georgiou, who have engaged with us very positively and constructively and who have tested the government's assertions and propositions as to why our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan is so important to protect jobs and to ensure that we can have the strongest possible wages growth, because in the end nine out of 10 working Australians work in a private sector business and their future job opportunities, their future job security, their future career opportunities and their future wage increases depend on the future success and profitability of the businesses that employ those nine out of 10 working Australians.
But everybody of course will want to know what is happening with our company tax cuts legislation in the Senate this week. It is a matter of public record that, as a result of the work that has gone on so far, we have been able to secure the publicly stated support of 37 senators in this chamber for our business tax cuts legislation. Everybody knows we need 39. So, given that proposition and given that that is the situation that we're in, the government have made a decision that we will need to do some more work. We are committed to these tax cuts as being in the national interest. We are committed to these tax cuts because we passionately believe that they are in the best interests of working families across Australia. That is what the Labor Party used to believe.
We believe that to create more jobs and to deliver higher wages we need to ensure that the businesses that create those jobs and the businesses that have to pay those higher wages have the best possible opportunity to be successful into the future. We believe that we should not be putting our businesses at a competitive disadvantage. We don't believe we should be forcing our businesses to compete with businesses in other parts of the world that are subject to significantly lower business tax rates.
Given that and given what I've just stated, we believe that there is opportunity to get there. We believe that there is opportunity for the government to persuade the majority of senators of the merits of our argument. We believe that there is an opportunity to find a consensus with the majority of senators in this chamber to ultimately support our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan in full. That is why the government is committed to keep working, to keep engaging. I should say that we are very grateful for the positive, courteous and very professional engagement that we've had from all non-government senators on the cross bench. We have very much appreciated the conversations so far and we believe that there is scope to have further conversations moving forward.
So it's the government's intention to bring the business tax cuts legislation back to the Senate in the next sitting week. We believe it's in the interests of working families of Australia that their Senate passes our business tax cuts legislation in full because, ultimately, as I said at the beginning, jobs and higher wages don't grow on trees; jobs and higher wages are created and paid for by more successful, more profitable businesses. In the end, that is a basic economic truth. We are an open trading economy engaged in global competition. We cannot afford to put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage moving forward because it will lead to investment leaving Australia, it will lead to wealth leaving Australia and it will lead to jobs leaving Australia. That is, of course, precisely the opposite to what we need.
With those few words, I say to the Senate: the government will never give up fighting for the best interests of working families across Australia; the government will never give up on making sure that businesses across Australia have the best possible opportunity to be successful and profitable into the future. That is why we will persist with this legislation and why we will bring it back to the Senate in the next sitting week.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the statement.
Thank you, Senator Cormann, for confirming that we won't be dealing with this legislation before Easter. Senator Cormann said he wanted jobs and higher wages. There's one certain way that you won't get that result of jobs and higher wages, and that's by supporting the government's legislation to give big business in this country a $65 billion tax cut. If the minister's theory had worked, we would have seen it when Ronald Reagan gave those tax cuts in the 1980s. America would have created jobs and increased wages, but, of course, that's exactly what didn't happen in the United States. It didn't happen in the United States and it's not going to happen if this parliament passes that legislation.
What the government is doing this week is, on the one hand, giving big business a $65 billion tax cut and, on the other hand, proposing a tax rise for ordinary working Australians. That simply doesn't compute. That's not the way this country is meant to work. It simply increases the level of inequity that we have in this country.
This weekend is, of course, Easter. It's an opportunity for us to reflect on sacrifice and an opportunity for us to reflect on social justice. The minister has referred to the crossbenchers who decided to jump on board with the $65 billion tax rise. It's surprising, I think, that the government didn't bring the bill forward to allow us to test the numbers, but I'd say to all of those crossbenchers who are considering supporting this legislation, and Senator Cormann mentioned them—Senator Bernardi, Senator Anning, the Pauline Hanson group, Senator Martin and Senator Leyonhjelm: 'Here's an opportunity to reflect on your decision to support this legislation, because that decision is the wrong decision. That's not the way we create equality in this country.'
What did we find out today from that secret survey conducted by the Business Council of Australia?
No jobs.
Senator Cameron says, 'No jobs', but, more importantly, there are no wage rises. Senator Cormann has referred to the number of jobs that have been created in this country. Yes, there have been jobs created in this country. There have been jobs created in this country because the world economy is on the rise. But what hasn't happened in this country over that period of time is workers' wages going up. If this government gives big business a $65 billion tax cut, we already know from the BCA that they're not going to pass that on to ordinary working Australians in the form of wage rises. Sure, some of them will get an increase—the CEOs will get an increase, I'm sure, and the executives of those companies will get an increase—but it won't trickle down to ordinary, hardworking Australians. It won't trickle down to those people who really need a wage rise in the current environment. We also know that a hell of a lot of the money from this tax cut will go to companies overseas and shareholders overseas, who, let's be frank about it, don't need any more money.
As we reflect on sacrifice and social justice principles this coming Easter, I'd say to those people who are going to determine whether this government gets this legislation: think very carefully about whether the course of action that the government is proposing is the best course of action for this country. I don't know what's going to happen in the next election—we're very close to an election, we're probably 12 months out at the most from the next election—and the Labor Party's position is very clear. Bill Shorten has said, 'We will reverse these high-income tax breaks. We will reverse them.' So whatever you decide to do with this government, this is going to be reversed by virtue of an incoming Bill Shorten Labor government. I also say to those people: we have inequality in this country and we don't improve inequality by voting for a $65 billion tax cut. Think long and hard about your decision and come back after Easter, let the government present its legislation, and reject this $65 billion tax cut.
Mr President, we gave leave to the Leader of the Government to provide the Senate with an update on the negotiations in relation to the enterprise tax bill. What we heard from Senator Cormann was a fairly lengthy attempt to argue the merits of his bill, which, obviously, he has not been able to convince the Senate of to date. We heard Senator Cormann refer to 'his belief'—as, indeed, he has done on several occasions in question time during the course of this week. Each time he talks about his belief, it is countered by question after question after question of the evidence that's there before us. Today, the most recent evidence was this secret BCA survey. But, of course, the indisputable evidence, as both Senator Farrell and Senator Keneally mentioned today, is that fairness simply doesn't trickle down. You don't need to hear this in the language of fairness; you can hear this in the language of economic commentators as well. If there is a fundamental difference between the government and Labor here in the parliament, perhaps this is the point: the government's got its priorities wrong and has been unable to convince the Senate otherwise. The government's priority is the top end of town, and this enterprise tax bill is the best example of that point. There is no economic case—we have demonstrated that in the last two weeks here in the Senate—and the Labor Party will continue to argue this point.
We heard Senator Cormann in question time today attempting to say, 'Well, you know, you're on board for the first three years of the program.' That is a complete misrepresentation of the Labor Party's view on the enterprise tax bill. We have been, and will continue to be, clear that we do not accept more tax breaks for the top end of town. In case and case again, our focus has been on jobs, the cost of living, education, health and closing down the capacity of some in our society to access tax breaks that this government seems so keen to continue to make available and, indeed, further.
I indicated, in seeking an opportunity to respond to the minister's statement, that I wanted to reflect on some procedural matters, so I will focus on those. Apart from the point I just made, the minister told us that he was going to give us an update on negotiations. After a fairly lengthy contribution about his beliefs, we finally got there. It is: senators, we cannot anticipate that this bill will be before us tomorrow. Fortunately we will have the opportunity to return home for Christmas—sorry, for Easter.
We could still be here at Christmas!
We could still be here at Christmas; you're right, Senator Farrell. But I do want to take this opportunity to reflect on what else is before the chamber now. Alarmingly, it seems to be somewhat linked. It is the government's prerogative, of course, to order government business in the Senate. This is why we allowed the leader leave to make his statement, to reorganise the program—as, indeed, he has—and to give us an updated statement about his negotiations and whether we're likely to get to that bill.
But what's more concerning is this next motion that has been circulated, and so here I talk to the crossbench. If the crossbench have supported the government in bringing on this next matter, I beseech them to understand what they are really doing. You are allowing the government to have the prerogative beyond government business. One key example on that point is that further down on the program today, as Chair of the Senate Privileges Committee, as chair of the Senate's most senior committee, I'm due to report on a very important inquiry into parliamentary privilege that affects all of us. I will not be able to provide that report today if the motion that has been circulated in the chamber proceeds in the way the government proposes.
It seems we will have to argue about whether and how this should proceed. The opposition will not provide leave. Indeed, the crossbench might want to carefully consider that any crossbench senator who, in the future, might seek to move a disallowance motion might have, with the cooperation of some other senators, the government hijack it. That's what is going on here. Whether the government think that by moving to proceed with this matter, the marine parks disallowance, they'll get some shield or some cover for their lack of progress on tax—
Tell them they're dreaming!
Indeed, I'll tell them they're dreaming. We may hear that there's some other agenda that they've got happening that we're not privy to because we haven't been part of these company tax negotiations. Indeed, Senator Cormann is trying to say, 'No, Labor's really on this agenda.' No, we haven't been participating in these negotiations. We don't know what the government's agenda here is. We will not be providing leave for the government to change the program for today. We will be arguing against it strenuously because we think there are some very serious procedural matters at hand. The first point, as I said, is there are important matters on our existing program that we won't get to. The second point, as I said, is for any senator in this place to think very carefully about whether they want to allow the government to hijack business of the Senate and disallowance motions. There are set procedures for how we proceed with disallowance motions; they exist for very good reasons. If the crossbench join the government in supporting this motion, they will regret it in the future.
I will say just a few brief words following Senator Cormann's speech. I think it would be true to say that we are all here in order to increase the standard of living of Australians. We measure the standard of living in terms of getting a job and how much we get paid for that job. Where we differ, of course, is in how to achieve that increase in standard of living. Quite a lot of people in this chamber are preoccupied with how to slice up the pie. Others, myself included, are concerned about creating a bigger pie. I've had this discussion with quite a lot of Labor people as well, and within Labor that same debate occurs. We are not going to create a bigger pie if all we argue about is big business and whether big business is being benefited. We have to remind ourselves, as Senator Cormann pointed out, that all big businesses start off as small businesses. What we would like is our Australian small businesses to become big businesses, but they won't if taxes are too high.
I want to address also the question of overseas shareholders in that context. Overseas shareholders certainly have some shares in our Australian companies, but Australian shareholders also have shares in overseas companies. Do we really want our shareholders in Australia to be investing in overseas companies because they are more profitable, more likely to become big companies? Tax cuts will simply keep the jobs we have. The tax cuts that are proposed are very small, in my opinion, and very slow to come in. They will do nothing more than keep the jobs we have, but they are absolutely essential if we are really looking at growing a bigger pie. In May, when we come back, I hope the tax cuts bill passes resoundingly—for jobs, for wage rises, to create a bigger pie and to raise the standard of living.
I just read, five minutes ago, a media report in The Sydney Morning Heraldby David Crowe, who said:
Australia's biggest companies are launching a national campaign to restore "faith and trust" in business amid a ferocious political debate over a second round of company tax cuts.
That is exactly what we are debating right here, right now. Apparently there's going to be a blitz of advertising later this year about how you can basically buddy up and become a friend of a big business in this country and how really everyone is a friend. My message to the Business Council and the other stakeholders who are going to be promoting this message is: if you really want to make a statement to restore the faith and trust of the Australian people in the business community then come out now and say these corporate tax cuts were a bad idea, that the revenue that the Australian people have generated through taxes—and admittedly some of that comes from corporations—should be left with us here in government, to spend on our social safety net, on education, on health care, on infrastructure and on action on climate change, just to mention a few things. There are many other ways we can produce sustainable jobs, industry and futures here in Australia without giving a handout to big, wealthy corporations.
I make this very clear: the Greens voted against the second round of tax cuts in this country. We led on tax cuts for small business. We were very happy back in 2012 and 2013 to push for tax cuts for businesses under $2 million, which is a majority of businesses in this country, and many of them are doing it tough. But we have consistently voted against tax cuts for bigger business. We voted against tax cuts for businesses up to $10 million, and we voted against tax cuts for businesses up to $50 million. It is not in our DNA to support tax cuts for big businesses in this country, especially when many of those businesses don't pay their fair share of tax. Of course, that's something that the Business Council, in this campaign, is very well aware of—the reputation of a lot of multinationals who dodge tax. Many of us senators in this chamber have been on numerous committees that have looked at this in a lot of detail. Although we've passed new laws in this place—and the Greens were very happy to be part of putting those laws into place—and we have been able to pursue some of these multinational corporations for tax for the Australian people, to pay for schools and hospitals, we still have a long way to go.
As far as big business all around the world getting in the ear of governments and pushing for tax cuts is concerned, that is a race to the bottom. Senator Cormann's logic is that all Australian people should have been supporting this today because Australia will be uncompetitive if we don't match our neighbours' tax cuts. Given the disparity already between tax levels, this is nothing but a race to the bottom. And we get gamed by multinational companies. They game the system by going to governments all around the world and saying: 'Your tax rate is too high. Look at Australia. You need to cut it.' And we have a race to the bottom. Eventually there will be no corporate tax and they will have exactly what they wanted. No-one can tell me what the optimal rate of corporate tax rate would be. It's only based on a relativity of what the next country is going to pay. We've seen countries, like Germany, with higher both effective and headline tax rates than Australia still having much better employment numbers and economic growth numbers than most countries in the world, including Australia.
I want to make another point before I finish here tonight. The Greens are that passionate about this debate that we want to campaign going into the next federal election on reversing these tax cuts and making sure that Labor, if they get into government—and I hope they do get into government at the next federal election—will reverse these tax cuts. I want to be really clear. We will support the current status quo with tax thresholds of $10 million. Although we voted against the increase of the threshold from $2 million to $10 million, we will support the status quo of $10 million. On 30 June this year the sliding scale changes so that companies up to $25 million will get the tax cut and then, in the following June, companies up to $50 million will get a tax cut. We do not support that, and we want to see that legislation reversed. We hope the Labor Party will join us in our campaign going to the next election to make sure that those corporate tax cuts are reversed.
I remind everybody today of what we saw in the leaked document from the Business Council of Australia that made its way to the Fin Reviewtoday. I said this in my speech last week—and I may have been the only one who raised this point—but it is critical in this debate. If businesses are choosing to take their corporate tax cuts, their windfall gains, as they have in the US, and reinvest them in their own shares by buying their shares or giving money back to shareholders, it's not only an admission that they're not going to give any money to their workers—which will lead to higher wages or more employment—but an admission that they have nothing better to invest that money in. In other words, they're not going to reinvest it in their own industry or their own growth plan if they don't see that investment being the best return. That is actually the most important point here. It's right up there with the fact that they're not going to give any of this money to workers.
The whole logic behind Senator Cormann's push for this tax cut and behind the modelling that the Treasury has done assumes that this money will be invested back in the business. We found out from the Business Council of Australia leak that, out of 130 CEOs in this country, 80 per cent were considering buying back their shares. Only 20 per cent said that they would consider giving some of this windfall gain that the Australian people are passing on to them to their workers. Let's be very clear about this. This is taking Australian government revenue, taxpayer revenue, from the citizens of Australia and gifting it to some of the biggest, wealthiest, tax-dodging corporations in the world—not just in this country. These multinationals get away with it everywhere. We are gifting money from the Australian people to big corporations. It is a transfer of wealth. There's no other way that you can look at this, especially when they say: 'Thank you very much. I'll put that in my pocket.' By the way, rising share prices and, no doubt, better share valuations on the back of changes to their capital structure will mean better CEO and executive bonuses.
So what's at stake here is very real and it's extremely important. We need to not only celebrate the fact that these tax law changes have not got up this week but fight hard to make sure that they don't next week. Going into the next election we need to commit to reversing any tax cuts that we see coming in the Senate, if they happen at all. This needs to be campaigned on. This is critical for those of us who have a different vision for this country and for the Australian people.
If there's one thing that really annoys me, it's Senator Cormann talking about fairness and the coalition talking about looking after working people. Let's look at their record on this, and let's go back to the first budget this government ever produced, a budget that ripped way from families in this country and attacked those who were in the weakest position in this country. How did Senator Cormann celebrate that? With a glass of wine and a big Havana cigar—that's how he celebrated unfairness and inequity. It's an absolute nonsense for this senator to stand up here and lecture anyone about fairness and equity. It's a nonsense for Senator Cormann to be standing up here and lecturing people about making the pie bigger when he cuts the capacity for families to put food on the table and to clothe their kids and send them off to school. It's a nonsense for Senator Cormann to get up here and lecture anyone about good economic policy.
What have we had from Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Cormann? An increase to the GST was going to be the first terrific change that this government was going to make. I think that lasted about a week. It was the big announcement, the big policy change, that was going to make things different in this country—the GST—and I think it lasted one week. Then we had taxing powers being given to the states. I think that lasted a couple of days. That was going to be the game changer from this so-called economically competent government. And now we've got trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economics has never worked in the United States. It hasn't worked in North Carolina, where they were arguing the same point; it hasn't worked in Kansas, where they've done the same thing. They've gone: 'It doesn't work. We need to be able to keep our hospitals going. We need to keep our infrastructure, we need to keep our education system and we need to pay our public servants.' This is the reality of being in government. These guys over on the other side of the chamber, these people that see Milton Friedman as their hero, believe in small government and think that government should only deal with defence and legal issues. It doesn't work. Governments need to be intervening in a mixed economy to make the economy work.
I want to go to this issue about increasing the pie. You don't increase the pie by cutting penalty rates from working families. You don't increase the pie by making one of the major areas of social benefit in this country—the trade union movement—weaker. All this mob want to do is give more power to the bosses over the workers and diminish the capacity of the trade union movement to protect workers' wages and conditions. Well, let me tell you, Senator Cormann: that doesn't increase the pie. That diminishes the pie because all it does is put more money into corporate profits that go to their bottom line and go right back to executive salaries in this country. That is not what we want in this country. If it's about redistribution then Labor's in for redistribution. We want to look after those who have difficulty looking after themselves. We want to make sure that workers get a fair go in this country. And we want to make sure that the inequality that is so rife in this country—the inequality that is a huge problem—is dealt with. All this government wants to do is increase inequality and increase the capacity for employers to gain more at the expense of working people.
If we're going to talk about sustainable growth, the future of the economy and the future of this country, let's do something about climate change and make sure that we are in a position to build and access the new technology and keep power getting to communities around this country by going to renewables, because that is the future. All we have from this mob are scare campaigns. Remember when it was the former Senator Joyce in here—it was $100 lamb roasts. They are the experts in fear campaigns in this country. I won't cop a lecture from Senator Cormann about good economics, because he has displayed none of that as the finance minister.
The Prime Minister has displayed no good economic positions in this country. I've gone through the failures that the government have had. When you attack the health system, as this mob did in the 2014-15 budget, when you take money out of the education system and try and penalise the poor—that is not the way forward. Is there any wonder the Prime Minister is now on his 30th Newspoll loss? And, when you add the previous Prime Minister, it's 60 losses! People are jack of this terrible government, this rabble of a government, this government that just cannot get its act together. Its members are too busy beating up on each other. It's an absolute disgrace.
And I have to say it's a disgrace that some of those senators across the chamber—the Independents—have just caved in to this bad government. I heard today the new senator from Tasmania, who's supposed to be representing Tasmania, reading out a dorothy dixer prepared by the government. What are they doing? They should look after working people in Tasmania, stop capitulating to this bad government and make sure that Tasmania's got a future. That's what they should be doing, not capitulating and kowtowing to the Turnbull government. And, Senator Anning, the sooner you join the Liberals the better, because you are no more than a vote for the Liberals on every issue, regardless of whether it hurts working people in this country. All the Steven Bradburys in the Senate that are here now because others have fallen apart should really be in the Liberal Party or the National Party, because that's how they vote. They don't care about working people. They don't care about penalty rates for workers. They just simply accept the rhetoric that we hear from Senator Cormann in here day in, day out.
Senator Cormann has just not got it when it comes to economics. This government doesn't have it when it comes to looking after its finances. Budget deficits have increased. National debt has increased. And this is the mob that were out there telling everybody what a terrible position we had. They are hopeless. They are absolutely hopeless. If you Independents want any chance of surviving—and I don't think you've got much now—and hanging on at the next election, you've got to stop backing this lousy government in every time it attacks working people and working families in this country. It is a bad government with a weak leader that doesn't understand what's good for working people in this country. When you go away, you should come back here and vote against these corporate tax cuts. You should listen to your communities when they tell you that they don't want $65 billion going to the corporates, they want their penalty rates saved and they want to make sure that they've got an opportunity to feed their families. This is a bad government with a bunch of Independents who are simply kowtowing to it. They should show a bit of backbone, show a bit of leadership, stand up for their communities and stand up against this bad government.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for today, to provide for the consideration of a disallowance motion.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent him moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
And I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to. The motion moved by Senator Cormann was 'That the question be now put,' before we move to the suspension question.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
I move:
That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Question agreed to..
I move:
That today—
(a) the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of five instruments made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 relating to Marine Parks Network Management Plans, standing in the name of Senator Pratt, be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business; and
(b) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after the disallowance motion has concluded, or at midnight, whichever is the earlier, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.
The question is that the motion—Senator Collins, are you seeking a point of order?
Yes, I would like to—
This was actually to be determined without amendment or debate. I'll put the motion moved by Senator Cormann. Senator Pratt?
I'm just trying to work out what the future question before the chamber is, given that I have not yet moved a disallowance motion.
We'll deal with procedural matters following Senator Cormann's motion which is before the chair. I'll put this to a vote now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.
I move:
That the following instruments, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed:
Temperate East Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00321]
North-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00322]
North Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00324]
South-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00326]
Coral Sea Marine Park Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00327].
We are here today to stand in opposition of the government's environmental vandalism. The government forced this chamber to make a decision on this disallowance before I moved it, which has constrained the opportunity for consideration and debate of these issues. I forewarn those who are still deliberating on this issue: I call on them not to vote with the government at this time because we should not be allowing Australia's network of marine parks to be gutted. What the government is doing is: the more pristine the protected area the more savage the changes are. In the government's alternative marine park plans is the Coral Sea, which has been the jewel in the crown of our territorial waters, our Commonwealth marine parks, and it is going from being protected to being a haven for long-lining and trawling.
I call on the crossbench not to listen to the mistruths that are told by those opposite—claims like, 'Labor did not adequately consult on the marine parks.' This is utterly false. We took six rounds of consultation. We received almost three-quarters of a million submissions. We had 250 stakeholder meetings that were attended by more than 2,000 people. That is more than six times the submissions that the Turnbull government received on its own proposals. Even the government's hand-picked review panel found Labor's consultation processes were extensive. Indeed, the government's review panel said in its findings:
There was a considerable amount of 'consultation fatigue' expressed by many stakeholders in the face-to-face meetings. A common initial comment was 'We've already been through this; can't we just get on with it?'
There was buy-in and support for Labor's marine parks, and the government has gone ahead and sought to trash them.
These claims about inadequate consultation were made by one Mr Davey. I find this particularly galling and surprising given he personally attended a consultation meeting with Tony Burke, the environment minister, on 6 May 2012. He was there with a range of other fisheries stakeholders and several departmental officials. It doesn't matter how this government tries to spin it; it is undertaking the largest ever removal of any area from conservation in our nation's history. We stand here to support the original marine park plans as endorsed, as consulted and as secured by the Labor Party.
Senate estimates revealed that consultation means nothing to this government. The Director of National Parks received 82,000 submissions on marine management plans from. These plans that we have before us, which we're seeking to disallow, are even worse for the environment than the recommendations of the review of marine parks commissioned by the Abbott government, before this government. We have 97 per cent of submissions calling for Labor's original plans, which were put in place in 2013, to be restored. Among those who identified as recreational fishers, for example, 95 per cent of those submissions asked for the plans to be restored. Why? Because Labor's marine parks are substantively better for recreational fishers than the government's alternative plans. They're significantly better and they allow recreational fishing in areas that will enable regeneration of those fish. But, instead, the government wants to open those areas to commercial fishing and absolutely trash the marine protection that would support the enjoyment of recreational fishers in our country.
Let's go through what we stand to lose here. We stand to lose significant parts of the Coral Sea protection. Minister Frydenberg's proposal sees that absolutely smashed and decimated. It is extraordinary. In my home state of Western Australia the Diamantina fracture zone is also absolutely decimated in its marine protection areas. If it was appropriate to show you the maps in this place, I would do so. Unfortunately, we are bringing on this disallowance motion at a time when we've not had adequate opportunity to talk to everybody in this place about why these marine plans are so terrible and so bad. We are seeing over 50 per cent of the marine national park zoning being stripped away by the government.
As I said about recreational fishing, what the government is doing—and I call on recreational fishers right around the country not to fall for the government's misinformation about this—is erasing Australia's largest recreational fishing zone in deference to large-scale industrial fishing, including midwater trawling and tuna longlining. Our network had 18½ per cent of the Coral Sea reserve set aside for recreational fishing. What has the coalition done? It has removed that entirely and replaced it with areas where all commercial fishing is allowed except for bottom trawling. Yes, it's true to say that recreational fishers can still go there. But so can commercial fishers.
Shark Reef and Vema Reef have had high-level protections completely removed. Unique reefs like Marion Reef and Kenn Reef have been stripped back to only partial protection. In our temperate east waters, one of Australia's longest standing marine national park zones, Middleton Reef, in the far north of the Lord Howe marine park area, has been cut. This marine park, I'll have you know, was not declared as part of the recent Labor government's marine park protection; it was declared in 1987 by the Hawke government. It's incredibly important to the marine network in that area, as the marine zones there are rare and valuable.
As I said, off the coast of south-west WA is the Diamantina fracture zone. This has reduced one of Australia's largest marine national parks to one with the lowest possible zoning. This is where everything is allowed, except bottom trawling. You know, how could you bottom trawl, frankly, in an area that's between five and seven kilometres deep? There is no fishing or mining out there currently, so why do you want to lift it? You want to open it up to commercial fishing. At Geographe Bay, you removed one of two marine national parks. In the north-west of Western Australia, large marine national parks that help sustain the marine life of the Kimberley, and indeed our very important Ningaloo Marine Park, have been stripped of much of their protection. And in the north, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, we have seen our protections cut off the Wessel Islands, Karumba and in the Torres Strait, leaving those important areas open to both bottom trawling and mining.
Oh, rubbish!
It's all very well for you to say 'Oh, rubbish!' but that is what your marine park rezoning allows. You are stripping back the marine protection that Labor put in place, and you can see it on a map. Labor went through a very comprehensive process where we layered places to have complete marine protection and where other zonal use would be allowed. You have completely stripped back the protections and allowed mining, commercial fishing and other uses into areas where they should simply not be allowed.
In our marine reserves network Labor supported dedicated areas for recreational fishing, including 18 per cent of the Coral Sea, the largest area in the world zoned in this way. The blue and yellow zones of the Coral Sea maps, which I can't show you because it's not appropriate to show you in the chamber, have been removed by Minister Frydenberg. Minister Frydenberg has opened Labor's rec fishing zone area up to longlining, to midwater trawling. These are the same fishing methods used by super trawlers. Additionally, in the Coral Sea, where you can't rec fish, you'd have to travel 200 kilometres, and that's a long way to go in a tinnie. So Labor's network does not impact on mums and dads and their children who want to go fishing.
The government are running a scare campaign to try to distract people from the fact that they're letting commercial fishers fish in more of our waters. I implore the chamber this evening to support this disallowance motion. The government is claiming that its network allows rec fishing in 97 per cent of waters from within 100 kilometres from shore. That may well be true, but I can tell you that Labor's network allowed rec fishing in 96 per cent of waters within 100 kilometres of shore. The difference is this: you are trying to make yourselves champions of recreational fishing, but the simple fact is recreational fishers will be competing with commercial fisheries. Labor's marine parks are substantively better for Australia's rec fishing community, and that's why they received such strong support. We see such absolute environmental destruction in your marine parks. We see that you have put forward the largest-ever wind-back of areas under conservation. No government in history anywhere in the world has ever removed from conservation protection an area as large as you are removing right now.
I want to say to you: the government put out misinformation about the finality of Labor's marine parks, but they were absolutely final. Tony Abbott himself spoke on and voted on, I think, six disallowance motions in the House of Representatives. I can remember those opposite seeking to move disallowance motions on our marine reserves many times, so any claim that we haven't done the work or that we have somehow squibbed at the last minute, which is another completely false set of accusations that has come from the other side, is completely wrong. Instead, what you have sought to do is through absolute misinformation—I want to be able to call it lies but I'd have to withdraw that immediately. But I am just so utterly gobsmacked at your complete vandalism of our nation's marine parks.
We had the most comprehensive set of consultations that this nation has ever seen when it comes to deciding on our marine parks zones. How do I know this? I know this because I was part of them and met with stakeholder after stakeholder. I took issues from the environment movement, from recreational fishers, from commercial fisheries, from APPEA and from others. I took those issues to the minister and I was part of the deliberations to balance out what went where and what was important to keep in and keep out. There were more than 200 meetings. That was way above and beyond what the government has done in putting forward its alternative proposals.
You have completely caved in to—I'm not even sure what—your own right-wing, internal, anti-environment agenda. I cannot see anywhere the logic for what you are seeking to do. There have been no big industry calls for this; there have been no recreational fishing calls for this. I can only put it down to some kind of innate anti-environment agenda coming from the other side, because what you are doing is completely irrational. It has been a completely inadequate process, it has had completely inadequate consultation, and it completely strips back the environmental protection that our nation's oceans deserve.
Now, you should recognise that, globally, our oceans are in absolute crisis. What our oceans need to see globally is more, not less, of this kind of protection. Right around the world, we see fishery after fishery being stripped back, putting our globe's food security at risk and putting our world's biodiversity at risk. So I make this plea to this place: please, let Australia continue to be a leading example on marine and environmental protection. Our nation should have a proud record in marine protection, and what the government is doing in its alternative marine park plans, which should be protected by supporting this disallowance motion, is incredibly important to our nation.
Senators opposite might roll their eyes at this, they might talk about how they intend to maintain Australia's environmental record, but the facts speak for themselves. Over 50 per cent of the marine national park zoning is being stripped away by the government. That's like halving our national parks on land. But, after question time this week, maybe we're getting a taste of that, where the government refused to rule out logging in national parks.
You know that's not true.
You didn't rule it out. You were asked a direct question and you refused to rule out logging in national parks.
Senator Ruston interjecting—
You tell me that that's not true. Well, if you truly stand by these kinds of environmental credentials, you should be ruling out stripping back marine protection by 50 per cent. In your alternative plans, 50 cent of our nation's marine national park zoning is being stripped away. We have Australia's largest recreational fishing zone erased in deference to large-scale industrial fishing. This is simply not good enough.
If today you get away with defeating this disallowance motion, I can tell you that Labor will not stop fighting for marine protection in this country. We will fight with campaigners and networkers right across this country—rec fishers and commercial fisheries; you name it, we will be there—because our oceans in this country will be in crisis if you are allowed to get away with this environmental vandalism.
Having listened to the contribution opposite, you could be excused for thinking that we are actually removing something. The truth—and what the Australian public need to know—is that we are, in fact, not removing anything at all, because there is absolutely nothing in place. There are no protections in place.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
I take the interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson, and I acknowledge his pragmatic approach to this, because he actually said in Friday's paper that, whilst he thought that the marine protections that were being put forward by the government with this suite of marine management plans were woefully inadequate, they are better than nothing—because we have got nothing at the moment. So I acknowledge that, Senator Whish-Wilson. To say that we're removing the largest amount of marine parks ever in the history of the universe is once again not true. You can't remove nothing. There is nothing in place. We have no protections in place, and it would be fair for those opposite to actually be honest about that. To also come in here and say that there has not been adequate opportunity for consultation with the crossbench is really quite ridiculous. Notice was given last Tuesday for this motion to be moved on the next sitting day. That was a week ago. So, one week ago, the Labor Party indicated that they were intending to move the motion the following day. It was then postponed, postponed, postponed and postponed. So I would suggest that the reason that you have said that you didn't have adequate time to come in here and debate this with the people who are going to make the decision today is that you probably just thought you had the numbers and now maybe you don't. We certainly hope you don't.
The campaign that's been waged in this place has been about misinformation and scaremongering. We're not rolling anything back; there's nothing to roll back. There are no supertrawlers coming, and the opposition know full well that there are no supertrawlers coming. There are no new boats and no foreign fishing boats coming in—and they know that.
Senator Pratt interjecting—
You know that this has absolutely nothing to do with fisheries management practices in relation to foreign fishing boats. This is about a set of protections for management plans for the marine reserves that have been already been gazetted. It has nothing to do with the boats that possibly can fish in Australian waters. You know that there are no proposals for foreign fishing boats or large factory fishing boats to come into Australian waters. So I don't know why you continue to scaremonger about this.
One of the most damaging things about this debate, and the scaremongering and the lies that are being spread out there in the wider community, is that it damages our international reputation. Quite rightly, we're very proud in Australia of our international reputation for fisheries management. To have the international media and the international social media—that anybody can get their hands on—believe that somehow we are damaging something when we are not, that we are rolling back protections that don't even exist and that we are damaging market access for our wonderful clean, green seafood that we are able to catch in Australian waters, damages our environmental credentials for absolutely no reason.
So what is the debate all about? This debate about marine parks is pretty simple. It's about a shared resource; our oceans are a shared resource. They do not belong to any one group, although you'd be excused for thinking otherwise. And it's also about a balanced approach: considering the needs and accommodating the needs of all of the users of our marine environment. It's about striking a balance between environmental concerns, social concerns, cultural concerns and economic concerns. And it's also about the right of Australians to eat seafood. It's about the opportunity for people who live in Alice Springs, who can't actually go fishing, to be able to eat Australian seafood. It's also about encouraging Australians to get out and go fishing. It's actually about delivering good results for Australians.
When it comes to marine parks, Labor talk big about what they're going to do, but it's coalition governments that deliver. Let me remind the chamber that, in 1998, it was actually John Howard who committed to the establishment of a national representative system of marine protected areas in the context of oceans policy. This led to the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network in 2000. Today, it is fitting that it is we in this chamber who are seeking to introduce a suite of management plans for marine reserves in Australia. It is part of our heritage that we deliver on things. We don't rush off into ideological positions that completely and utterly destroy the opportunity of all Australians to enjoy our wonderful marine environment in a sustainable and sensible way.
The other thing is that, if we are successful in bringing in these management plans, 36 per cent of our marine waters will be under marine park protections of one sort or another. This is more than three times—in fact, 3½ times—the international benchmark of 10 per cent, which was set and is known as the Aceh target. Once again, we start off with the position of those opposite, where ideology beats the science; where politics beats the evidence; where inner-city concerns beat regional communities; and where unaccountable foreign-funded ENGOs are taken notice of before we listen to the Australian people. All I can say is that we, as a government, have made a very clear decision and a clear determination that we are going to base what we do on science and on the interests of the Australian public—the people who actually own our marine environment, our oceans and the fish that swim in it. We are not going to be held to ransom by the wants of some ENGO from the Northern Hemisphere.
What we want to know is: why is Labor's plan all about fawning to these Northern Hemisphere ENGOs and the inner-city greenies, who, I'm sure, don't even know where the Coral Sea is, let alone have ever been there? We do know that the whole campaign has been run on fake news. The email campaigns that we've seen from these ENGOs, like the Australian Marine Conservation Society and Save Our Marine Life, have been unbelievable. To call them rank and tawdry xenophobic dog-whistling would be about the most accurate way of describing them.
Let me set the record straight. No solely managed fisheries in the Australian Commonwealth are subject to overfishing, nor have they been for the last five years. The total allowable catches for all Commonwealth fish stocks are set at very conservative, ecologically sustainable levels. Any vessel operating in Australian waters must follow Commonwealth fishery rules and regulations. There are absolutely no exceptions to that whatsoever. No fishing vessel is allowed to fish in declared non-take protected marine areas or green zones, and there are no approvals in place for any foreign fishing vessels to operate in Commonwealth waters. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the campaign run by ENGOs is the damage, as I said, that it's done to our international reputation. But I've got a message: I think the people of Australia will wake up tomorrow morning and realise that it is fake news and that we are putting in place protections for our marine environment that will make sure that we have a sustainable environment. We protect our marine environment, but we don't lock people out of doing things in that marine environment, unless there's a scientific reason to do so.
The coalition government's approach is to strike a balance between protecting the marine environment and the economic interests of our current and future generations. It's based on evidence and independent science; it's based on exhaustive consultation with all legitimate stakeholders. Our world-class management of Commonwealth fisheries has been complimented: we are recognised internationally as the best fisheries managers in the world. I hope you won't disagree with that. It also seeks to minimise the economic impact on our professional fishers, because we believe Australians have the right to eat Australian seafood. It retains access for recreational fishers to 97 per cent of the waters within 100 kilometres of the coastline, which is where most people fish. And it will cost taxpayers significantly less than the colouring-in competition that was undertaken by those opposite when they had the pens in their hands.
Our message to the Australian community is quite simple. We want all Australians to be able to enjoy their oceans. We support the right of every Australian to drop a line over the side of their boat, no matter how far out to sea they go. We support our sustainable fishing and aquaculture industries and the thousands and thousands of jobs they provide—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
And most of them are in regional areas, Senator Pratt—something that you probably wouldn't know about. We want all Australians to be able to enjoy safe, sustainably harvested, fresh, healthy Australian seafood. We have actually listened to the Australian people first and foremost, and not to foreign-funded ENGOs who have no skin in the Australian game. We support and trust the Australian public to continue to look after their marine environment rather than looking, with no scientifically proven reason, to stop them from enjoying that environment.
What really annoys Labor is that the coalition plans actually protect more environmental features than the plans that they put forward. We are intending to protect 509 conservation features, including reefs, seamounts and canyons. Three hundred and forty-four sites have received the highest levels of protection, compared with their 331. We have green zones that are more than 20 times the size of Kakadu, or half the size of New South Wales. We have protected sea floor habitats totalling almost the entire size of Victoria. We have also protected iconic sites of ecological significance such as Ningaloo, Osprey Reef, Geographe Bay, Bremer Bay canyon and Kangaroo Island, to name but a few.
But we have also enabled our recreational fishers—those five million Aussies who like to go fishing—to enjoy what in some cases might be a once-in-a-lifetime fishing opportunity in the Coral Sea. We've protected their ability to do that. We've given them a chance to fish at some of the most iconic reefs, such as Kenn Reef, Bougainville Reef, Marion Reef and Wreck Reef—reefs that have had no damage whatsoever done to them by fishing in the past. We're saying that the limited type of fishing that occurs is going to cause no damage and we think that Australians should be allowed to continue their responsible fishing behaviour.
We also want to protect our professional fishers such as Walker Seafoods, who are based out of Mooloolaba. We want them to be able to continue to fish their Marine Stewardship Council certified tuna, because they've spent the money to get themselves certified by an internationally recognised organisation and they've got access to markets around the world because they are sustainable. We want them to continue to be able to fish. We want our northern prawn fishers to continue to supply us with beautiful banana prawns, and we want Australians to continue to enjoy their oceans and not be locked out of them.
It's not just me who wants this. Importantly, the relentless campaign by Labor has actually galvanised the recreational fishing industry and the professional fishing industry as one behind the plans that are being proposed. Our recreational and professional fishers strongly support the coalition government's management plans for marine parks. They include the Australian Fishing Trade Association, the Game Fishing Association of Australia, the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, Seafood Industry Australia, the Northern Territory Seafood Council, the Queensland Seafood Industry Association and the Northern Prawn Fishery Industry association, just to name a few. I thank our commercial and professional fishers for the support and the valuable advice that they have given the coalition government over the last three years as we've developed these plans and come along this journey.
Australian waters belong to Australian people—not to the Labor Party, not to the Greens, not to foreign-funded ENGOs, but to all Australians. Our oceans are a shared resource, another concept that seems to be lost on those opposite. Our oceans are for the enjoyment and the benefit of all Australians. With the coalition's marine parks and our world-class fisheries management, the Coral Sea will continue to be the 'Serengeti of the seas' and will still be able to be enjoyed by Australians. The coalition management plans deliver a balanced and scientific evidence based approach to oceans protection. They enable tourism and well-managed fishing activities. They support local communities, they support local jobs and they support local economies.
I also put on the record my thanks to the independent panel of Colin Buxton, Bob Beeton and Peter Cochrane, who worked tirelessly to develop the background that supported the decision, and the consultation that was undertaken by the Director of National Parks. I acknowledge the extraordinarily high level of work undertaken by her and her consultation process with her team.
So I stand here today to say that I am very proud of this set of very balanced plans that we are hoping to put in place to protect our marine environment into the future. I reject the comments that were made by those opposite that we are winding anything back. We are not. We are putting the plans in place to protect, for the first time, our marine environment. So I stand here to oppose your disallowance motion, because I believe that the plans that we have before us strike the right balance for all Australians.
Over 10 years ago, I campaigned for the Wilderness Society. I did some work for them on marine protected areas. I went to Senator Ruston's home town of Adelaide when the South Australian government was looking at putting in place their marine protected areas. I couldn't have imagined that I'd be standing in the Senate 10 years later looking at such a diabolical, woeful, sad set of plans for marine protection. When I think back to the community campaign well over 10 years ago to get proper marine protections put in place, what we have before us in the Liberal Party's regulations, which we want to disallow, is nothing short of a disgrace.
I want to break up my speech tonight into three separate parts. I want to talk a bit about the process around disallowance and why the government's trying to rush this disallowance motion. Then I'm going to talk about the policy that we have before us, an absolutely critical policy for those who believe in healthy oceans and marine protection. Then I'm going to talk a little bit about the politics at the end of it.
I will start with the process and this disallowance motion. For those who may be listening to the debate, when the government proclaimed their marine parks, they put in place, essentially, a set of management plans or regulations, and they sit on the Notice Paper in the Senate for a period of time. Senators have the right to disallow those regulations. We could disallow those regulations, potentially, all the way into September. Certainly there's no rush to be doing it this week, nor is there a rush to be doing it even in May or June. We actually have to take our time to get this right and to look very thoroughly at this. But I am reliably told—and I won't be naming any names here tonight—that we are rushing this tonight, and the government has forced the disallowance motion on its own regulations, which is highly unusual, because of 'uncertainty'. I can't find out exactly what the uncertainty relates to, and it is beyond my comprehension that the government would use this excuse of wanting to end uncertainty given that, when they came into government in 2013, what they did was to rip up a decade or more of community campaigns to put in place Australia's first marine parks, which were legislated in 2012. I was very proud to be a member of a party that worked with Labor to legislate those plans back in 2012. The government ripped them up when they got into power in 2013. They said in their campaign in the election that they would rip them up, and that's what they did.
Senator Ruston is right in one sense: that, since then, while the laws may still have been in place and the boundaries were still in place, unfortunately the management plans and regulations have meant those laws have no teeth. So we've had no protections in place unless directed by the Director of National Parks, who, of course, is under the direction of the government in terms of those assessments. So we've had this sad situation in Australia where decades of hard work by thousands of people in the marine community was essentially thrown in the bin.
So for the government to be saying we need certainty and we need to vote on this tonight is absolutely ridiculous. What about the certainty for the people who've been campaigning to protect our marine life for over a decade? The government didn't mind that when they kept extending the consultation process on this woefully inadequate set of plans that we've got here tonight. So I ask you, Senators: what could be the uncertainty? Why would the government be wanting to have a vote on this tonight in a highly irregular procedure? What would the certainty be that they're trying to achieve? The only thing that I can guess, having seen Senator Ruston take such an active approach to this, is that, in South Australia, in the not-too-distant future, we're going to see oil and gas exploration and we're going to see seismic exploration occurring, including around places such as Kangaroo Island.
NOPSEMA are due to report on this this Thursday, funnily enough, as a complete coincidence. They, and the oil and gas industry, are a party—a special interest—that would like certainty on this issue, if they're going to commit to seismic testing and long-term oil and gas exploration in the Great Australian Bight. That's why they're rushing this vote tonight. It's because the Liberal Party, as usual, is probably in the pocket of the oil and gas industry.
Let's deal with the policy. The science tells us we need to protect our oceans. We need areas where we can restrict activities, such as oil and gas exploration, fishing and even tourism. They are very sensitive areas. Marine protected areas are a critical part of our toolbox for protecting the oceans, but it is true that they're not the only form of protection. We still need to concentrate, more broadly, on climate change and the impacts of warming waters, ocean acidification and marine plastics. They are all things that I've also campaigned on for over a decade. But marine protected areas are critical when our oceans are under so much pressure, which they are. Our oceans are becoming broken, and we need to relieve that pressure in every way we can. These marine protected areas were designed to do that, and they're absolutely critical. They're insurance policies for future generations to allow the ocean breathing space to recover.
For Senator Ruston to come in here and say that the government's plans are based on science is absolute claptrap. The science showed a much bigger area needed to be protected. In fact, I raised these issues directly in estimates only a few weeks ago. It is very clear that the plan we have before us tonight is being driven by economics and the interests of a few—a few fishing companies and a few oil and gas companies. It's not something that would be totally unexpected from the Liberal Party. The policy outcome is simple. We need a set of plans for marine parks that have green zones and no-go zones, not more multiple-use zones, that pick the right areas and have coverage where it's most needed. But this plan has not been designed in the interests of our oceans. It's been designed in the interests of commercial fishers and the oil and gas industry.
What about the politics of the decision that we have to make here tonight to support the disallowance or not support the disallowance? I do want to recognise tonight that, because the Abbott government came in so ruthlessly and cynically and ripped up protections based on decades of campaigning by communities right around this country to get marine protected areas in place, there are currently no protections in place. I want to recognise that there are some in the environment movement, including many scientists and other stakeholders, who have indicated to me—I've been very careful to consult very widely in the last four days, since I found this disallowance was on—that they have made that very hard choice, one they should never have had to make, that they would rather see some weak protections in place than no protections until we can try and change the government.
Let me also say tonight that there are a very large number of passionate ocean champions, scientists and stakeholders right across the board, who don't want to see these plans put in place. It would be fair to say that this Senate vote on this disallowance is the first chance that we as a parliament have formally to reject this Liberal government's environmental vandalism. It's the first message that we can send after watching over the last four years the ripping up of marine protections and delayed of the process until it suited them. This is our first chance as a parliament to register our protest and to join a community campaign afresh to do what we set out to do, well over a decade ago, to get a proper, robust and real set of marine protections in place. That's why the Greens decided this morning in our party-room meeting to support the disallowance motion before us here tonight, and to join the community, and the Labor Party, and anyone else who wants to campaign for healthy oceans, and achieve that outcome. We are very proud to be part of it.
May I say to Senator Ruston that if she believes that getting this disallowance up tonight is somehow going to give certainty to the oil and gas industry or to the commercial fishing industry then she needs to think again, because this is not the end of the road by any means in relation to this disallowance. I think Senator Pratt mentioned in her speech that the Liberals tried to disallow the Labor-Greens marine parks up to six times. Well, we're not going away. We've got plenty of time.
So if you're an oil or gas company out there, and you're worried, and you want the certainty and to see these plans put in place—you're not going to get it. And I would say that, regardless of whether these weak, ineffective plans get up, a change of government at the next federal election—which I dearly hope happens—will rip these plans up anyway. Here, tonight, I commit my party to campaigning to do that, until we actually get what we set out to do, which is to have a proper set of protections in place.
So, whilst I acknowledge tonight that there are some in the environment movement who would rather see a piecemeal, incremental approach to this, it's our strong belief as a party that supporting these weak, woefully inadequate plans is sending the wrong message. It's setting too low a bar. And I'm extremely worried that, on the same set of plans that I worked on in South Australia over 10 years ago, the new Liberal government in South Australia are already stating that their marine protection areas are going to be up for review. If this becomes the benchmark for future MPAs around this country then it will completely redefine what 'marine protection' means. And we simply cannot allow that to happen. I'm convinced that there are a lot of good people around this country who still have a lot of fight in them, because we haven't got to where we need to be—that is, we haven't got a good, solid set of regulations and management plans in place to protect the areas that were gazetted back in 2012. There's plenty more to come on this, so I warn the Liberal Party, and the crossbench: if you think the fight's over tonight, it's not. It's coming back. And we have a very important period in estimates where we can get more information from the government around their decisions.
I might go back to process briefly. My understanding was that Senator Ruston was incorrect in what she said tonight—that the Labor Party moved their disallowance back on Tuesday a week ago. I certainly didn't know about that. I only found out about it on Thursday. And that was just over 24 hours after the department uploaded the full plan, of nearly 800 pages, the details of which, may I say, I and other senators have been asking for, consistently, for the last two years. And 800 pages is a lot of information to get through in a short period of time. So the politics of this is quite simple: we make a statement tonight, as a Senate, that what we actually want is real marine protection, and we will not accept anything less. We will not accept anything less for our oceans.
Our oceans are nearly broken. They are under unprecedented stress. David Attenborough recently caught international attention and raised a few eyebrows—and he is a man who's not normally political—when he came out and said that our oceans are facing their biggest challenge in history. It is not the time to be weakening protections now. It's a time to be strengthening protections. It's a time to get real and serious about future generations and their livelihood—not just about the livelihood of a few special interests that are in the Liberal Party's pockets, or vice versa. This is actually about looking after our oceans and setting the bar high enough to do that. And if we accept this tonight—if we accept these woefully inadequate, weak, ineffective plans for marine protection—then we are making a statement that we don't care about our oceans.
I'm sorry to those in the environment movement who would rather see a piecemeal approach. Let me just say to you, as a politician, that I don't think that's going to work. It certainly won't work for an effective campaign. We all need to come together, get on the same page, continue what we've done for years now, finish this off and get the job done. That starts with continually pushing back on this government by disallowing these plans.
Finally, I want to recognise my colleague Senator Siewert. She's been in the Senate a lot longer than I have. She was a marine campaigner for Save Our Marine Life, marine parks and marine protected areas a long time before she came into parliament. She knows a lot of stakeholders who have been involved in this for years. We are a party which is 100 per cent up for a fight on marine protection.
I rise to speak on Senator Pratt's disallowance motion. Australia is a global leader when it comes to ensuring the ongoing health of our marine ecosystems. Our marine protected areas cover one-third of the world's existing marine conservation parks, which amounts to some 3.3 million square kilometres. Thirty-six per cent of Australian waters are included in marine parks—leaps and bounds ahead of the World Conservation Congress resolution calling for 30 per cent by 2020.
As a senator for Queensland I can tell you that Queenslanders know the importance of managing our resources for future generations. However, this management cannot be done through large sweeping decrees issued in isolation without consultation. These management plans represent a clear move towards outcome based management and decision-making, where each decision made balances enabling the use of the marine areas with the need to protect natural, cultural and heritage values, which I acknowledge the minister for ensuring. However, in the past we have also seen decisions made that do not balance use with protection. We have seen ideological zeal and environmental activism trump a commonsense approach.
If these plans were to be disallowed, it would mean many more years of uncertainty for not only the Queensland commercial fishing sector but also recreational fishers and the many businesses within our state's tourism industry. We would see no additional marine protected areas for several years—most likely much longer—unlike the additional 200,000 square kilometres of sea floor protected under this plan. A future government would be required to go through the entire process again, adding to uncertainty within the many industries that rely on our marine areas. There would be a need for more public consultation and more submissions—that is if future governments don't just enact sweeping restrictions, as has happened in the past.
This disallowance is the complete disregard of three years worth of consultation and independent scientific review, 130,000 written submissions and numerous public forums. It is the complete rejection of almost 650,000 Queensland recreational fishers, the complete disregard of 1,500 Queensland commercial fishing boats—boats which contribute 10 per cent of the nation's seafood production in both quantity and value—and, finally, the complete failure of many industries who rely on our marine areas for their wellbeing. As such, I'll be voting against this disallowance motion.
Commonwealth marine reserves play an integral role in protecting the diversity of our oceans and also in balancing the need to enjoy the benefits of them. Marine parks that are based on science will ensure that this balance is achieved. In November 2012 the new Commonwealth marine park reserve networks were first proclaimed under the EPBC Act for the north-west, the north-east and the south-west marine regions as well as the Coral Sea. A total of 44 new marine reserves were declared, covering a total of 2.34 million kilometres.
Following consultation, management plans for those reserves, including those in the south-east region, were tabled in parliament in March 2013. The management plan for the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network came into force on 1 July 2013, while the management plans for the other regions, plus the Coral Sea, were due to come into effect on 1 July 2014. However, a change of government took place in September 2013. Following this, in December 2013, the Governor-General revoked and reproclaimed the Commonwealth marine reserves in the south-west, north-west, north and temperate east networks and the Coral Sea, pending a marine reserves review.
The effect of this revocation and reproclamation is outlined in the Federal Register of Legislation. For example, in the detail section for the Coral Sea Commonwealth marine reserve management plan 2014-24 you can find the following statement: 'This management plan ceased to have any legal effect on 14 December 2013, when the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Commonwealth Marine Reserves) Proclamation 2013 took effect and revoked the reserves this plan related to and declared new reserves for these areas.' In other words, the ALP management plans are tied to a proclamation that has now been revoked. So, although the plans may be described on the Federal Register of Legislation as 'in force', they have no legal effect. I'll say it again: they have no legal effect. Labor have argued that their management plans were legislated and that the government's management plan reflects a cut of more than half of the protected marine areas in the Coral Sea. Yes, they may have legislated them, but they weren't due to come into effect until 1 July 2013. I will repeat what I said earlier: Labor's management plan ceased to have any legal effect on 14 December 2013.
In order to cut something, you need to have something in the first place. I know the Greens understand the dilemma we face. Based on comments from Senator Whish-Wilson that were published in The Guardian, they can see through the arguments being put forward by the Labor Party. I think Senator Whish-Wilson summed it up quite succinctly when he said that, if the government management plans were disallowed:
… then we move from some protections to no protections, and the protections of our oceans have to rely on Labor winning government and the conservative major and minor parties not having the numbers to disallow whatever plans Labor put in place.
I also note the comments that have been made by Senator Whish-Wilson tonight in the chamber. I understand Senator Whish-Wilson has announced that the Greens will be supporting the disallowance, and I respect that he had a tough decision to make about the balance between some of the competing interests in his constituency.
I'd like to put on the record that NXT wrote to the government stating that the preferred position of the Nick Xenophon Team was to support the management plans that were a result of the independent review colloquially known as the Buxton maps. Whilst the government's management plan does not represent the preferred option for NXT, we believe that disallowing the instrument will result in the least preferred option of no protection or certainty. Disallowing the instrument will continue this uncertainty for a number of months, possibly until the next election, as there is a minimum 120-day consultation process. This uncertainty and lack of protection has been in effect since December 2013, and it is the view of NXT that this cannot continue.
Before concluding my remarks, I will say that the coalition management plans do offer more protection for South Australia than the Buxton maps. I thank the minister for listening to Ms Sharkie, the member for Mayo, and NXT in our advocacy for this particular change. In summary, perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, not supporting the good leaves our waters unprotected and also leaves uncertainty. As such, we will not be supporting the disallowance motion.
The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Pratt be agreed to.